And then, too, the Income Tax Amendment came just in time to answer the last argument made in favour of the saloon.  Those engaged in the liquor traffic, after being defeated on all other points, massed behind the proposition that the government needed the revenue from whiskey, beer, and saloons.  As soon as the government was able to collect an income tax the friends of prohibition were able to look the liquor dealers in the face and say, “Never again will an American boy be auctioned off to a saloon for money to run the government; we now have other sources from which to draw.”

The third of the amendments was also a long time in coming and was finally brought by joint action of Democrats and Republicans.  It is not necessary to trace the growth of this reform.  Suffice it to say that the Christian churches were the dominating force behind the prohibition movement and that the South played a very prominent part in driving out the saloon.  More than two-thirds of the Senators and members from the Southern States voted for the submission of National Prohibition after nearly all the Southern States had adopted prohibition by individual act.  The first four states to ratify were Southern Democratic States—­Mississippi, Virginia, Kentucky, and South Carolina.  It is only fair, however, to say that the West contested with the South the honour of leading in this fight, and that the Northern States finally did nearly as well as the Southern States in the matter of ratifying.  And it is better that the victory should be a joint one, expressing the conscience of the nation regardless of party, than that it should be merely a party victory.

But the real credit for leadership belongs not to any party or to any section, but to those whose consciences were quickened by the teachings of the Bible.  Total abstinence was naturally more prevalent among church members than among those outside of the church, and this, of course, was the foundation upon which prohibition rested.  The arguments against the use of liquor are the basis of the arguments in favour of prohibition.  Because liquor is harmful the saloon is intolerable.

I venture to set forth the fundamental propositions upon which the arguments for prohibition rested.

    First:  God never made a human being who, in a normal state, needed
    alcohol.

    Second:  God never made a human being strong enough to begin the use
    of alcohol and be sure that he would not become its victim.

    Third:  God never fixed a day in a human life after which it is
    safe to begin the use of intoxicating liquors.

These three propositions can be stated without limitation or mental reservation.  They apply to all who now live and to all who ever lived; and will apply to all who may live hereafter.  To these may be added three propositions which apply especially to Christians.

First:  The Christian is a Christian because he has given himself in pledge of service to God and to Christ.  What moral right has he to take into his body that which he knows will lessen his capacity for service and may destroy even his desire to serve?