Newspaper Page Text
Prohibition DOES NOT Prohibit
experience has proved that illicit selling
ABRAHAM LINCOLN f| cannot get a large development by the side of CARDINAL GIBBONS
A * license selling, if the police administration
; be at all effective. IT IS ONLY IN REGIONS
Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of PPOWTRTTTniSJ P72FVATT S THAT ! lon 8 came to understand that, putting aside
temperance. It Is a species of intemperance within ™^$T q^t T TWP AQQTTMT7Q T APfF ppn the point of principle, it was virtually Impossible to
itself. J* prohibition law strikes a blow at the very LL,L,LK,L 1 bJ^i^i^llNHjr AbbUlVLtLa i^AJXUri^ ITIS.U- en f orce a total abstinence law in a large commun*
principles on which our goverment was founded. Ir OK. 1 1UJN o. ity or [ n a state. <
m The efforts to enforce prohibitory legislation
M . during forty years past have had some unlooked-for " " —
M.aine effects on public respect for courts, judicial pro- lowa
A CCORDING to the special United States tax pay. cedure, oaths, and law in general, and for officers of fT SQON appeared that the dru^ store was even
ments the liquor traffic exists in ei^hty-seven the law, legislators and public servants. The public 1 harder to rc^ u|atc than the saloon> and that men
places in Maine, containing 407,925 of the 661,086 has seen the law defied, a whole generation of habit- wou |d d rin k , n a drug store who would not, under a
inhabitants of the State, or about 61 per cent. An uql law _breakers schooled in evasion and shame- license system, have drunk at a public bar. The
ex-deputy collector of internal revenue states that in less courts ine ff e ctive through fluctuations of business of selling dru# became, in a city like Dcs
1890 956 persons paid th,s tax m Man* and adds, perjuries, negligence and miscarriage Moines, more profitable than banking Under the
XJ££Z " Of juSice, Officers Of tte la^double-faced and mer- cloak of a pretended medical necessity-^ in many
who ouiht to have P a,d but who Ad not. j l^islators timid and insincere, candidates «J «w « IKackins"liq1 K ackin5 " IiqU ° r
-From The Liquor Problem, by the * » & ,p_ , continued to be bought and sold as a beverage, even
committee of Fifty. for office hypocritical and truckling, and office-hold- where J saloons
l — ' ers unfaithful to pledges and to reasonable public
. —From Reports of Committee of Fifty.
M£il n p» expectations. . •
ITXctlllC CHARLES W. ELIOT,
.- , . ;"«■■■■- ... President Harvard University.
I found that, while I was driving the liquor out of gETH LQW Vermont
the ordinary shops, where it had been sold, I was Ex-Mayor of New York aty.
driving it into the houses and kitchens, where the JAMES C. CARTER, £ XPERIENCE has shown me that the law does
children of the family, who up to that time never President of Barbs' n of New York aty. **> not prohibit I, myself, have had to deal with
saw it, were accustomed to see it dealt out in that Sub ' Committee °f the Committee of Fifty to investigate the Liquor Problem repe ated cases of drunkenness, some of them ha-
surreptitious manner. bitual > unhindered, and to a certain extent, I be-
■^srrJL^S^t^ Liquor Dealers in Prohibition States Ueve provoked or ■* avated * y the * %
and state's Attorney. ■ 2. Prohibition drives underground the mis-
— F^^s^ r Sf4tlSa IUSuX=1 U SuX= chief which it seeks to cure, making it more diffl-
of the United States. The number of such licenses issued in a state in cult to deal with the evil, and impossible to regulate
lOTVcI an y y ear s h° ws » therefore, the number of persons or firms selling liquor in . trade . .; . *..;. i
such state during the year in question, hence it may be taken as indisputable
I feel certain that more distilled spirits are used as that those taking out such licenses do not pay for them unless they intend 3 The present law leads, I believe, in many
a beverage in lowa under the present law (while "ftherefore, the number of licenses granted by the government is as cases to heavier drinking in clubs and at home,
lowa was still under prohibition) than ever have great in proportion to population in Prohibition States as in License States it liquor being purchased in larger quantities than
been or would be under a license system. ™«« be the «* if jt were P° ssible to P urchase |
—Ex' Governor Boles. ig01) page g g) it j s s h O wn that the number of retail liquor dealers in propor- glass of wine or beer.
tion to population in each of the States given below, was as follows : '.
4. Specially, perhaps among the young, pro-
Michigan Prohibition States License States hib ition provokes resistance.
■*■ "-■"■■ Kansas, 1 for every 479 of population. Arkansas, 1 for every 1139 of population. ''l© .."^VV
Maine, 1 for every 485 of population. Alabama, 1 for every 1134 of population. $ The law, aS it exists, is Connected with a
YOU Can t talk prohibition in c^VllChlgan, for We New Hampshire, 1 for every 260 of population. Delaware, 1 for every 427 of population. '
North Dakota, 1 for every 492 of population. j Florida, 1 for every 855 of population. - vas j- amount Of hVDOCriSV ' '
have tried it and found What a failure it iS. Vermont, 1 for every 565 of population. Georgia, 1 for every 1504 of population. vcaou «* v j r J'
Indiana, 1 for every 292 of population. . ■
—Ex' Governor Aiger. I Kentucky, 1 for every 517 of population. 6. It tends to break down the sense of obliga-
i Massachusetts, 1 for every 570 of population. .
j Michigan, 1 for every 315 of population. tion in all law, human or divine. • .
\ Minnesota, 1 for every 323 of population. : -
_ T -r-r i • I Missouri, 1 for every 351 of population. y q existing prohibition law I consider fool-
]\PW XlciniHSllirC ■ Nebraska ' Ifor every 424 of Population. './ w wAioiuig f*v
" North Carolina, 1 for every 1162 of population. • h and m i sc hievous, because it is largely an ' at-
Pennsylvania, 1 for every 375 of population. . ,
We all know it has, as a general thing, been dis- Tennessee, 1 for every 1019 of population. temot on the part of one set of people to legislate
Texas, 1 for every 559 of population. r r
obeyed, disregarded, scoffed at. i utah, 1 for every 441 of population. or another set of people.
m w -1-1 f ' Virginia, 1 for every 662 of population.
—Justice Ladd, Supreme Court. West Virginia, 1 for every 641 of population. i, A
rARTHUR C. A. HALL,
1 — cAU of the above nineteen license states have fewer retail liquor dealers in
proportion to population than New Hampshire. Burlington, March 18, 1901. Bishop of Vermont. '
]W r fy|.4-T| T)o Ir fit'i In all the prohibition states the number of retail liquor dealers aver- ; :': '
aged 1 for every 442 of population, while in the nineteen license states named -___——
Prohibition is a flat failure in North Dakota. the number of retailers was on K one for every 489 of P°P ulation - Thus > in „ t
proportion to population the prohibition states had more retail liquor dealers JVL 3,SSRCIHISCttS
-Bishop Stanley. i n 1901 than had the license states named.
The number of saloons (1 for 442 of population) in proportion to pop- Vf ASSACHUSETTS tried prohibition for fifteen
ulation in all the prohibition states taken together is greater than the average JTI - IOCC , 1 Q « n ,„ .„ „ , ir v,; / ,u ov.«
MaSSacllUSettS number in the.twenty-eight license states, including those named above and y ears from 1855 t0 1870 ' dunng whlCh She
Connecticut, lowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, Rhode found the law vain and injurious, and, upon the
Prohibition has been enacted in this state, thor- | Island, South Dakota and Wisconsin. | testimony of her governors and best citizens, fatally
oughly tried, and repealed by its sponsors as a con- huftful t0 the cause of temperance. cAfter fifteen
fessed failure. - Ex . Gooeron , Ru , sell , Vote JUHC 2nd AGAINST OrdiHanCC years of earnest trial, she also repudiated the law,
and when, in cApril, 1889, a strenuous effort was
111 lIIIIIWBfIfIf IMJIIIU ™ IB ?MMff made to again engraft prohibition upon the Con-
For the ordinance prohibiting the »a!e of Jdtoxlcatiog liquor* in the city |f StitUtlOn Of the State, it failed. The farming DOpU-
of Lot Angeleu, except at in aaid ordinance provided. I/I
■ ■ lation threw its weight with that of the cities
Ajralntt the ordinance prohibiting the tale of intoxicating liquor, in the v . . i • .v
city of Lot Angeie.. except at in taid ordinance provided. A ■ against the amendment. Une town only in the
wmmmmmmmmmmmmmMmmßaKmammmmmamm. commonwealth gave it a majority.
LOS ANGELES HERALD: THURSDAY MORNING, MAY 25, 1905.