alcutta or
Canton, only by importing the plague in every return voyage, who would
deem it an honorable employment? If an apothecary could pursue his
business only by killing nine persons out of ten of those with whom he
had dealing, who would deem it a lawful business? If a man can get a
living in his employment only by fitting out a privateer and preying
upon the peaceful commerce of the world, who will deem it a lawful
employment? If a man lives only to make a descent on the peaceful abodes
of Africa, and to tear away parents from their weeping children, and
husbands from their wives and homes, where is the man that will deem
this a _moral_ business? And why not? Does he not act on the same
principle as the man who deals in ardent spirits--a desire to make
money, and that only? The truth is, that in all these cases there would
be a violation of the great fundamental law on which men must agree to
live together in society--a violation of that great, noble, and
benevolent law of our organization, by which an honest employment
interferes with no other, but may tend to diffuse blessings in the whole
circle of human engagements. And the traffic in ardent spirits is just
as much a violation of this law, as in any of the cases specified.

2. Every man is bound to pursue such a business as to _render a valuable
consideration_ for that which he receives from others. A man who
receives in trade the avails of the industry of others, is under
obligation to restore that which will be of real value. He receives the
fruit of toil; he receives that which is of value to himself; and common
equity requires that he return a valuable consideration. Thus, the
merchant renders to the farmer, in exchange for the growth of his farm,
the productions of other climes; the manufacturer, that which is needful
for the clothing or comfort of the agriculturist; the physician, the
result of his professional skill. All these are valuable considerations,
which are fair and honorable subjects of exchange. They are a mutual
accommodation; they advance the interest of both parties. But it is not
so with the dealer in ardent spirits. He obtains the property of his
fellow-men, and what does he return? That which will tend to promote his
real welfare? That which will make him a happier man? That which will
benefit his family? That which diffuses learning and domestic comfort
around his family circle? None of these things. He gives him that which
will produce