Newspaper Page Text
The Natic** ^ Prohibitionist
A Jovirnal of Good Citi^easfiip CHICAGO AND NEW YORK Volume XIII. December 19, 1907. Number Thirty-Two RESPONSES COMING One Hundred Fifty-six Dollars Received Monda.y in An swer to Appeal of Exten sion Committee Quick and generous responses have come to the appeal in The National Prohibitionist of last week looking to putting the paper in position for the great work which it must do in the com ing campaign. Notwithstanding the fact that, owing to the great storm, thousands would not get their paper until Saturday and some not until Monday, the mail Monday brought back replies aggregating one hundred fifty-six dollars. With these con tributions and pledges came words of cheer and hope. It is evident that the Prohibitionists of the country intend to see that we have a national paper with funds behind it which will enable it to serve the party and the cause with greatest efficiency. The problem before the Prohibition party now, is to establish The National Prohibitionist. It should be done at once. Have you answered the appeal of last week? Do you intend to answer it—or is it your de cision to have no part in this great move? It is not possible to make a report for later than Monday. Any contributions or pledges re ceived after that time will be reported later. All pledges or contributions should be ad dressed to Oliver W. Stewart, 5464 Jefferson Ave., Chicago. Up until last Monday twenty-two persons had given one hundred fifty-six dollars, as follows: Sixty Dollars, Oliver W. Stewart. Twelve Dollars, F. R. Marks, W. F. Mulvi hill, Anna Sneed Cairns. Six Dollars, Oliver F. Brand, the Rev. W. Gimmell. Five Dollars, the Rev. A. A. Knappen, Chas. W. Crain, J. M. Underwood, . W. H. Trout, John Studebaicer, J. E. Walton, Geofrey Dazet, Three Dollars, F. R. Herrick. Two Dollars. Abram Brown, J. W. Ross. One Dollar, Brice Suffield, Mrs. Emma Bray, E. E. Harris, A. M. Becker, O. P. Scovill, A. B. Dingman. BILLS IN CONGRESS National Legislature Has the Liquor Business Squarely Before It—Prohibition for the Capital Washington, D. C., December 10—(Special correspondence).—Representative Chandler of the first district of Mississippi, has introduced in Congress a bill providing for the prohibition of the liquor business in the District of Columbia. The bill is drastic and, should it become a law, would prevent the operation of breweries and dis tilleries, as well as the retail sale of liquor. The bill provides for punishment, in event of violation of the law, fines ranging from $100 to $500, with or without imprisonment of from thirty days to six months. The bill has been referred to the House committee of the alcoholic liquor traffic. Congressman Robert M. Wallace of Arkansas, has introduced a measure prohibiting the inter state transportation of intoxicating liquors wher ever state or local laws forbid the traffic in the same. THAT “BLOW TO PROHIBITION” Another Liquor Fake Investigated and Refuted—Light Upon a Dark Claim Made on Be^sis of “Govern ment Figures”—What is Shown to be the R.es\ilt of Even a Poor Sort of Prohibition In some of the recent campaigns in the South much space was purchased in the daily papers by the liquor interests for the publication of what purported to be an official statement given out by the United States Census Bureau, showing that drunkenness and crime in general are more common in Prohibition cities than in license cities. The matter has been reprinted in north any desired showing. It will also readily occur to the intelligent reader that to take Kansas City under its old nullification regime, and Portland under the kind of government that it has enjoyed since the death of Sheriff Pearson, as cities that show the result of the Prohibition policy, is man ifestly unfair. Of course, everybody knows that upon occasion these same people would have TABLE 1: LICENSE AND PROHIBITION IN MASSACHUSETTS. Arrested «n0rwT City. Population. Saloons, for Drunk- n rink iotal Crimes. Arrests. ENNESS. Boston . 594,618 783 27,792 30,888 43,033 Worcester . 128,552 91 4,034 4,458 5,761 Fall River . 114,004 100 2,476 3,223 4,708 Lowell . 100,150 None 2,664 2,844 4,034 Cambridge. 98,444 None 1,344 1,788 2,802 Lynn . 72,350 66 2,661 ' 3,068 4,096 New Bedford . 68,955 57 1,567 1,869 2,302 Somerville . 68,090 None 977 1,078 1,846 Lawrence . 67,932 56 1,770 2,089 3,064 Springfield . 67,423 55 1,656 1,818 2,658 Holyoke . 48,736 45 840 983 1,343 Brockton . 43,843 None 788 943 1,528 Haverhill . 38,987 37 1,087 1,298 1,695 Salem . 37,504 32 1,276 1,450 1,838 Malden .1. 36,853 None 215 286 1,962 Newton . 36,350 None 498 606 873 Chelsea . 35,920 None r,2iS 1,391 2,174 Fitchburg . 34,378 None 636 699 1,038 Taunton . 32,713 31 1,439 1,538 1,726 Everett . 28,317 None 298 329 498 Gloucester . 26,562 26 878 1,024 1,308 North Adams . 26,519 22 597 709 1,070 Quincy .:. 26,053 None 471 635 835 Waltham . 25,161 None 214 265 475 Pittsfield . 23,707 19 933 1,073 1,353 Chicopee . 19,7S1 19 355 412 550 Northampton . 19,431 18 359 390 434 Medford . 19,108 None 93 107 218 Beverly . 14,687 None 227 253 567 Newburyport .... 14,595 None 513 609 797 Woburn . 14,342 14 754 797 913 Marlboro . 13,887 13 204 263 324 Melrose . 13716_Nonr_77 102 176 ern papers and widely commented upon editor ially. The “stuff” is almost entertaining in its character from the fact that it is so manifestly not a fair study of statistics, but a bungling com pilation prepared for the purpose of deceiving the reader. Its effect, however, has probably been considerable, since it was given out as official, and gravely quoted unnamed officers of the gov ernment as commenting on and explaining the serious results of Prohibition. In various papers the “expose” was published under head lines announcing a “Blow to Pro hibition.” The National Prohibitionist has already showed that the representation that this matter came from the government as an official output, was erroneous, if not fraudulent, and has already ex plained—what everybody knows—that it is easy enough by picking particular cities to make almost taken these cities to show that Prohibition does not stop the sale of liquor at all and would have asserted the wide-open character of the cities in question with just as much earnestness as they now assert the bad results of enforced Prohibi tion. Prohibitionists have never placed much stress upon the showing made by the statistics of li cense or no-license cities, or of nominal Prohibi tion cities under anti-Prohibition government, since, as it has repeatedly been explained, the Prohibition area is so limited, it is so difficult, and. in fact, so impossible to protect a single city or even state from any of the results of the liquor traffic, the governments by which the cities are administered are so uniformly hostile to the Pro hibition policy and so anxious to discredit it, that while not wholly valueless, the figures can seldom he taken at their prima facie showing.