Show PROHIBITION AGAIN We give space to another communication communi-cation on the prohibition question for the reason that we wish to be fair to both sides in the controversy It will be seen that there are a good many words with very little in them but the letters a The gentleman whose assertion about Kansas is assailed has just as much right to tell what he knows or thinks he knows as a Populist as if he were a member of any other party And the fact if it be a fact whici < we doubt but do not care to dispute that the majority of the Populists are in favor of prohibition would not recommend recom-mend it to the body of the people anymore any-more than their greenback notions That would not be any argument on the prohibition side Now as to the Kansas and Other statistics given in the article We do not rega d them as of any substantial value because statistics on < the other side are frequently adduced and they are an offset on each other Further they do not meet the point or prove anything In regard to the consunvtlon of Intoxicants In the state The amount sold direct to people for use in Kansas from the points mentioned I does not represent the amount used 7J J Under prohibition a large quantity Is I always surreptitiously obtained for which no statistics are given tThere are sources of supply which quote no figures nor are they to be obtained But there is the admission that even under prohibition laws enforced as well as they can be 1618 barrels of beer were sold In Kansas in 1892 and 2677 barrels in 1893 Which shows that as claimed prohibition does not prohibit pro-hibit while It does not show the actual cons mption of either malt or spiritous liquors in the state but only that which was known to be sold The ppponents of prohibition do not intend that any law is to be abandoned aban-doned because it does not entirely prevent pre-vent the crime which it was enacted to suppress But they do affirm that as to the liquor traffi it is very muchof a farce That the evidences are complete com-plete which show that the law is so extensively evaded as to make it a matter of ridicule That liquor can be had as a beverage in every state that has prohibition on its statute books and that drinking goes on there all the same for the laws which but comparatively compara-tively few regard as binding The allusion to Iowa Is unfortunate for our correspondent because that state has abandoned the untenable theory and its practice after demonstrating demon-strating that it Is a failure It always will be wherever the majority of the people are opposed to it In their hearts and show their opposition in their deeds I The revenue part of the largument which our intemperate prohibitionist denounces as too contemptible to deserve de-serve attention is nevertheless a reasonable I rea-sonable question to consider It has been demonstrated that high license I offers a rational restriction on the liquor traffic It makes the indulgence in articles which our prohibitionist friends denounce as pernicious contribute con-tribute to the public treasury Suppose the sale of intoxicants is forbidden in the state There is nothing to prevent their sale in Idaho Wyoming Arizona Nevada and California Any amount can be bought there and used in Utah The revenue from license would be lost to Utah and gained where the purchase pur-chase was made What would be the good of that Temperance or the moderate use of anything liquid stimulants Included and prohibition are entirely antagonistic antagonis-tic terms There is nothing temperate about prohibition not even the attacks of its advocates upon those who differ with them Moderation In the indulgence indul-gence of an appetite which has existed ex-isted from the earliest times and among all races is as asserted ua question ques-tion of deep concern But prohibition Is not moderation it is an abortive attempt at-tempt at complete suppression of something that is not suppressable The effects of intemperance which are made to do so much hard duty for I the prohibitionists have nothing to do I with the real question in controversy Nobudy denies the evil that is pictured pic-tured Nobody advocates intemperance or drunkenness which Is the most direct i di-rect term for the same thing On the contrary drunkenness Is punishable in every civilized community for the reason rea-son that it is an offense against the public An appetite which when appeased ap-peased in moderation is not criminal becomes criminal only when it breaks out into overt acts against peace and good order When protectionists charge that selling sell-ing Intoxicants is a crime the same as drunkenness or worse they become irrational ir-rational and when they talk of the I i unscrupulousness of liquordealers everWhere they are as intemperate I and foolish and nearly as vicious as I the common drunkard There are gentlemen i tlemen who deal In liquors who are far more honorable and benevolent and I temperate than many of their sanctimonious sancti-monious straitlaced and puritanical accusers There are men who deal in wines and liquors that never drink a drop of anything intoxicating There are others who do but never get drunk They pay their taxes discharge their honest debts and mind their own business busi-ness They never force anybody to drink nor try to compel other people I to conform to their notions That there are evil men in the liquor business we do not dispute That some of them use a corrupt influence in politics is no doubt correct But to class all liquor dealers in that category cate-gory Is oe of the Intemperate methods of the prohibitionist If the only remedy for the evils of intemperance is the removal of the cause as stated in the article we publish pub-lish and that cause is the traffic in intoxicants then the only remedy for the numerous evils of gluttony is to forbid the sale of all food The great error In the prohibition logic is in charging the evils which are due to over indulgence ki the sale of the thing indulged in instead of the excess of its use There are thousands of morphine fiends opium fiends tea inebriates physical wrecks ruined by other evil habits On the logic of prohibition the wrong is in the sale of the articles arti-cles instead of the vicious habits of the victims to self Indulgence The very principle of prohibition is wrong because it strikes at the free agency of man and the liberty of the citizen On prohibition reasoning Deity is to blame for all the ills of the fall of man for planting the tree that brought death In the traditional Garden of Eden The term the sale of liquors as a beverage Is a tune on a single string the prohibitionists are fond of playing What would they have liquor sold for If it is bought and sold for anything else what is to hinder Its use as a beverage Experience proves that evasion eva-sion subterfuge falsehood are stimulated stimu-lated by the miserable cheat of selling sell-Ing alcoholic liquors for manufacturing or medicinal purposes only when they can be used after purchase for anything any-thing the buyer chooses But there are differences of opinion as to the suppression of the liquor traffic and it is conceded that prohibition prohibi-tion Is pcssible In localities where the large majority of the residents favor it In other places It is not It is therefore proposed as a moderate temperate tem-perate provision of the law that each locality shall decide this matter for itself And the great objection to the present movement in Utah to submit the question of prohibition for the state to a vote of the people is that local self government would be abrogated abro-gated If the people in districts that want prohibition are to dictate what shall be done In those districts that want high license the rights of the latter to self government in this matter mat-ter will be infringed j |