OCR Text |
Show AN ANSWER TO MAYOR ROSE'S SPEECH AGAINST PROHIBITION OF THE SALOON BY DR. R G. McNTECE. hot " W..J r "t iL so'"' tMnK 10 "'car i?;V i ' of ,!UI. ilP0itant question llko euj on rur-K.lfiy evening. And l ulslt ii express my oblation to The Tribune thVn 1 l,shl"? M!,y,?r RoBB,8 aadiVs" "o hiLvv i?n f U.9 wh0 not near - i ?lu' lo. rci?'1 11,0 bulk of what ipoeeh!" "",y JUSlIy "C calI,:t, a slrons nonlli 'X ls ycr side, which I propose pro-pose to Rive, and in doing so will tmirit on .some of the Inherent. wcaknes8e df U: Roat'a position. His address, "oc--VV.P r!le fonr coIutniiB of nne type in rmVi. i!.?'!"0, VJay b0 summarized under h e sr T.'r 0PPor's prohibition of th. saloon for these, four reasons: f..vrf";i.,ecni,s.ei.l.h? ,nc" a,,,, who r,ior Ihf piphihUion of tbo saloon arc-fanatica arc-fanatica or llgot?p who discard facts and reason. Second, because prohibition Interferes wIth Personal liberty and private rights. i V because it promotes hvpocrlsy and docs not diminish the sale or llnuor. J-ourih. liecause of business consider, atlon.s. Now, lot- uh take up those points in order. As to Fanaticism. First, ns to the charge that the supporters sup-porters of prohibition of the saloon arc mainly fanatics and bigots. It Is surprising sur-prising that so adroit a debater as Mayor Kose should give himself away bv such a .sweeping and indiscriminate charge against hundreds of thousands of the noblest and most intelligent men and women In this country. Dut he makes no exceptions, lie lumps' the support -en? or the prohibition of the saloon business busi-ness all together, and declares that they have the cunning of the fakir, and the craft of the demagogue." I To saya they are not "constructionists, but despoll-Mfl." despoll-Mfl." lie says they "never build, but delight de-light In tearing down," "Well, for the past forty years, all the governors of Maine, with perhaps two exceptions, all t the United Slates senators from Maine, including Hannibal Hamlin, James G. ! I.llain.i and William V. Frye, and all the Judges of the state courts and of Ihc supreme su-preme court, with hardly an exception, haw upheld prohibition In that slaLe. and have smted again and again Hint the prohibitory laws against the liquor traf-tlc traf-tlc have been just as well enforced as the laws against theft. Nobody suppose! sup-pose! that the prohibitory laws a-alnst any vice or crime can bo completely enforced. en-forced. For twenty-eight years in Kansas, Kan-sas, and for sixteen years in North Da-kola Da-kola all the governors, with perhaps a single exception; all the senators and congressmen, all the judges of the state and of the supreme courts, have upheld prohibition as a practical success, which has brought untold social, material and moral blessings to their respective states. Are these men all either fanatics or bigots, possessing "the cunning of the fakir and the craft of the "demagogue?" T-ake the nearly half a million women who make up the noble army of the "Woman's "Wo-man's Christian Temperance union. Where Is there a band of women In the wide world who surpass them In intelligence, intelli-gence, culture, noble character and wide moral influences? For about eighteen years thev had as their president. In the person of Frances "Willanl. one of the most scholarly, talented, noble women in the world.- Are these all to be lumped together Indiscriminately as fanatics and bigots? Undoubtedly a few of the advocates of prohibition go to an extreme in their advocacy. ad-vocacy. But which is worse, to go even to the verge of fanaticism In their opposition oppo-sition to a great evil which, in the Judgment Judg-ment of Gladstone, has "brought more misery to the human race than those three great scourges, war, pestilence and war combined" which is worse. I say. to oppose such an evil to the verge of fanaticism, or to go up and down the land as the paid attorney of the saloon .power, "making the worse appear the belter reason." and indiscriminately denouncing de-nouncing tens of thousands of the most intelligent and noble men and women In tho hind as "fakirs" and "demagogues.' Such a reckless use of language as that simply reacts upon the one who uses 11. The Liborty Pica. " Take Mavor Rose's second point, that prohibition Is to he condemned because It interferes with the individual liberty of men. ami invndes their private rights. This was put forward as one of the stiont, points of the spoken address, though not given in the printed form, but this argument argu-ment has not even a straw to rest upon. 11. is fallacious all through, just as fallacious fal-lacious as for a hardware, merchant In our cltv to complain that his personal liberty lib-erty is" Interfered with because the city, for the good or all. prohibits him from keeping a powder magazine m inc. rear yard of his store; Just as fallacious as for a butcher to complain that his private, pri-vate, rights are. invaded because the city prohibits him from slaughtering his own cattle and sheep in his own yard, back of his butcher shop. I am in favor, and so are prohibitionists generally, of the; largest Individual liberty compatible with justice to the welfare of the whole com-munitv. com-munitv. But though citizens under a free government, we all have, to give up somo things for the good of tho community, or the state. Although a free citizen. 1 cannot store packages of dynamite and clant powder in my coal house, nor can my neighbor have any such liberty. The Idea that the prohibition of the sa oon Is an interference with a man's Individual liberlv is sheer gammon, for this reason, that "prohibitory legislation against the saloon does not say to any Individual man; "You shall not drink a glass or wine, or beer, or any other llipior you choose to drink." But It says: ' Sou shall not be allowed to maintain a public nuisance in the shape of a saloon, lo debauch de-bauch vour fellow men. to rob laboring linen of their hard-earned wages, and to manufacture criminals and paupers which tho upright and temperate men and women of tho community must support bv their taxes." What a marvel It Is that the sober and temperate people of this country did not. generations ago close up these factories of crime, pauperism pauper-ism and lunacy. Instead of paying taxes vear after year to support these products of the saloon, in order that a few men mnv make 20U per cent by soiling lbpior. Within the last three years, two of (he Indiana courts have deelded that a saloon is Indictable as a public nuisance, and can be closed on that ground. The Supreme Court Against Mayor Rose. It seems strange that Mayor Rose, who is a lawver, does not seem lo be familiar with the fact that the United States supreme su-preme court has more than once decided squarely against Ills position, that prohibitory pro-hibitory legislation against the lbpior traffic and the saloon is an unjust interference inter-ference with one's personal liberty. 1 will, therefore, cite two of these decisions de-cisions The first was In the Kansas cases, argued by Senator Vest of Missouri and Joseph II. Choate of New York f.Mugler vs. Stale and Slate, vs. Ziebold. 12. ". U. S. Reports. fi23). The objections to the prohibitory law were overruled and the law entirely sustained Justice Harlan, who wrote the decision. de-cision. In speaking of the alleged right of a citizen to manufacture and sell Intoxicating Intoxi-cating llriuor. says In the court's decision "Such a right does not Inhere In citizenship. citi-zenship. Nor can It be said that government govern-ment Interferes with or Impairs anyone's constitutional rights of liberty or properly when it determines tlin.t the manufacture and sale of Intoxicating drinks, for general gen-eral Individual use as a beverage, are. or may become hurtful to society, and constitute con-stitute therefore a business in which no one may lawfully engage. . . . No one may rightfully do what the lawmaking power, upon reasonable grounds, declares lo be prejudicial lo the general welfare." Decision in the California Case. The decision in tho California ease, written by that other great jurlsl. Stephen J. Field, is even stronger (Crowley vs. Chrlsl.ensen, 107 U. S. Rep. p. S). That decision says: "It is urged that, as the liquors are used as a beverage, and the injury following them, if taken in excess, is voluntarily inflicted, and is confined lo the party offending, their sales should be. without restrictions, the contention being that what a man shall drink, equally with what ho shall oat, is not properly matter for legislation. "There Is In this position the assumption assump-tion of a fact which does not exist, that when the liquors are taken In excess the Injuries are confined to the party offending. of-fending. . . . By the general concurrence of opinion of every civilized. Christian community, there are few sources of crime and misery to society equal to the dram shop, where intoxicating liquors, in small quantities, to bo drunk at the lime, are sold indiscriminately to all parties par-ties applying. . . . There is no inherent right, in a citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it Is not a privilege of a citizen of a stale, or of a citizen of the United States. As it is a business attended at-tended with danger to the community, it may, as already said, be entirely prohibited, prohib-ited, or be permitted under such conditions condi-tions as will limit lo the utmost its evils." In the light of theae two decisions de-cisions the argument of Mayor Rose, based on personal liberty, by which so many are misled, falls to the ground as utterly untenable. The. Hypocrisy Claim. Mayor Rose's third point against prohibition pro-hibition of the saloon Is, thai prohibitory legislation produces hypocrisy by the pretense pre-tense that the laws are enforced when they are not. and does not diminish the sale of liquor. In reply to tho first charge I would say. that no intelligent advocate of prohibitory legislation against tie- saloon sa-loon expects lo prevent drinking altogether. alto-gether. The prohibitory laws against theft cannot be absolutely enforced. Men will steal In spite of prohibitory legislation legisla-tion against stealing. But such laws are ncecssarj ami government enforces tlum the best it can. Men who have the drink habit are bound to drink even if they do have to go through trap doors to get It. Rut surely It Is a greul gain to good government and good morals when young. men. who have no such habit, are no longer tempted to drink by the cn-ticemenls cn-ticemenls of the open saloon. 1 have lived in two prohibition states and in one high license state- Anil my experience Is that the laws are Just as well enforced en-forced in the former as in the latter. In this eitv. we have the highest license in the United States.. But It Is almost impossible im-possible to enforce the laws against selling liquor to boys and young men under un-der age. and against opening saloons on Sunday. There is something demoralizing demoraliz-ing about the liquor business which makes men lawless. Mayor Rose quotes the statistics of arrests ar-rests for drunkenness and disorder In some of the chief cities in Maine, and declares thai the ratio of such arrests in the leading cities of Kansas is greater than in the wet cities of the countij,. lie Is trying lo make out that more liquor Is sold in prohibition stales -ind cities than elsewhere. But that Is an argument, argu-ment, which defeats Itself. Because if prohibition Increases the sale of liquor, as he argues, then all the liquor dealers in the land would lie advocates of prohibition, pro-hibition, since It would extend their trade. That kind of an argument is a p.ilnable absurdity, because there Is nothing which the liquor dealers of a slate so much fear as a campaign for piobibition. The Business Plcn. Mavor Rose's fourth point is thai prohibition pro-hibition of the liquor traffic is against the business interests of the community and the state, nnd therefore should lie opposed lv business men. This Is the strongest point in the speech, and yet if res in on a delusion as can be demonstrated demonstrat-ed In a few sentences, lie say. the nation, na-tion, the slate ami the municipalltv can-net can-net afford to suffer the Ions of revenue, from licensing the liquor tiaffie. which u'ould be incurred if 1 lint traffic were destroved. He figures the revenue to lb nation" from this traffic at 5123.000 (inn to the municipality at SS 1. 1100.000 and to the laboring men at ?.Vi. onn. 000. That seems very plausible. But iooi at another an-other side of the ease. There lies bufore me n summary of the report of (lie Ma-:mehusetts bureau of labor statistics for the year ending August 20. ISA", which is the latest r-- port T have. Tim' report shows tbnl 01 per cent of ihe crime perpetrated I" the Ktale that year was due to drink. There also lies before me a snmnmrv of . eiwi bulletin No. 70. which shows Hint !u ixilfl Hie receipts of the stale and local gov -rrinirnts for Pquor lie ns n were $21 - ! JSfi.lJC. JJU.t UJT .c.'. J.,,jJe'i!J Vll'.'j thai these same governments paid out sSi). IS0.000 lo take care for the criminals and paupers which the saloons manufactured. manu-factured. ' In other words, for every $2". which the states received for liquor licenses, li-censes, they had to pay out 586 to repair tho damages perpetrated by thai trnfi'Ic. They had to pay out nearly three and one-half times as much as they received. re-ceived. Furthermore, the .statistics of the last census which are before me show that for every $100 which men pay for tho products pro-ducts of legitimate manufacture, such as boots and shoes, clothing, nnd bread stuffs. $20. SO go to labor, while, for every ?100 invested In. distilled liquors. labor receives $1 .OS Furthermore, these statistics sta-tistics show that the same amount of money invested in the manufacture of twenty of the lending necessaries of life, such as boots and shoes, carpets, carriages, car-riages, furniture, will pay over five limes as much for raw material, and employ more than live limes ns many men, as when Invested in the liquor business. So that If the money now Invested in legitimate legiti-mate manufacture. laboring men who now receive ?ji. 000,000 in wages, according to Mavor Rose, would receive over four times that amount, or $280,0(10.000. If the capital Invested in the liquor business busi-ness in tills city were invested In legitimate legiti-mate manufacturing industry, it would give employment to more than five times iis many men as now. and would pay to farmers, stock men. wool men, and others, for raw material, more than five times ns much as It now pays. This is certainly cer-tainly a question worthy of the best study of thoughtful men. I do not think, however. how-ever. I hat anything Is gained by forcing prohibitory legislation upon the people of n state until they have been prepared for it. as the people in Maine and Kansas were by more than one campaign of education educa-tion In am glad that Mayor Rose made his speech here, for It Is only by thorough discussion thai the atmosphere Is cleared, and we get down to fundamental principles. princi-ples. Salt l,nke City. Sept. 10. 1000. |