OCR Text |
Show I Is Prohibition Good 1' - Eor The State? . H, ' 'iHthe Light of Common Sense and I: , . ,o.; Human Experience: No. VA-'"" " K I ' pi'-' Hy Monahnn, B : i JjSojncouc.hn8 defined history ns VAV r philosophy teaching by exatnplo. Sure B ' 'lyi'.tllero has been no lack of such I ' teaching as to tho effects and conse- imcnccs of prohibition wherever tried H In this country.' H ( Among tho states which have made B I u mere or less disastrous trial of pro- BflV v hlbltlon nnd have abandoned l't for t license, wo may name Vermont, Con- HBBB IIh i i j ncctlcut, Khndo Island, Now Ilainp- (shlrc, Michigan, Iowa, Illinois, No- f brusku, Pennsylvania and South Da- kota. H - it j ,1'hese members of our common- B I ' wealth hae, at different times but H P. "vitbwnlmtst ciiual emphasis, answer- H i , .-.id. tho iiuostlou propounded above: Hl f ', ' ) tSlt'y navo replied that prohibition was H' '&tti not good for them. K ill . Uut why wns prohibition not good B for them? K f Prohibition did not tienutit tho B ' i states named, nnd cannot bouoflt any V tate ,for certain moral and material BM i I f I reasons. On the contrary, It did them i ' I f f I jicnt and positive harm. B I ' '-ot us first barely glanco at the B J moral evils wrought by prohibition B 1 ' ov"8 wlllcl1 ll lnust always iwoduce, B " ns the tree bearcth fruit according to Hl ItB PftVHil -Prohibition refuses to recognize HBHV j) liaturnl laws, and It has, therefore, ! I failed oven uhcro every condition and BBBB ,' clrcumstanco seemed to favor It. H IVohlbltion Is tho parent ot Illicit BBBB ' traffic, which enormously aggravates HBBB tho drink evil. It Is a violntion or tho HBBB ; American spirit and n contrndlrtlan of four theory of government , H is .nn tiNloni thnt laws which arc 1 not founded In right and reason can never bo enforced. Tho habitual dls.-regard dls.-regard for prohibitory statutes wherever wher-ever they are presumed -to be In forco tends to create nnd foster disrespect dis-respect for nil law. 'On this very point the committee of fifty (headed by such men as President Pres-ident nillot of Harvard, IJIshop Potter, Sotli Low, Hon. Carrol I). V right, Hon. Charles J. llonnp.irt ), Or. l'ollx Adlor, Prof. W. O. Atwater and Illch-ard Illch-ard Watson Glider) hn's mado a searching report In which thoy say "There has been concurrent evil ot prohibitory legislation. The efforts to enforce It during forty years havn had some unlooked tor affects on public lespect for courts, Judlclnl proceedings, oaths nnd laws In ten-oral, ten-oral, nnd for officers ot the law, legislators leg-islators nnd public trvanu." Tho committee goes on to point out that "tho public has seen law defied, de-fied, n whole generation ot habitual lawbreakers schooled In evasion nnd 8hamelessness, courts lncftccMvc through fluctuations ot policy, delays, perjuries, negligences nnd other mis carriages of Justice, offlceis of tho law doublo-taced and mercenary, legislators leg-islators timid nnd Insincere, candidates candi-dates for offtco hypocritical nnd truckling, truck-ling, and office holdors unfaithful to pledges and reasonable public expectation. expec-tation. Through nn agitation which hns always had a moral end, these Immoralities have been developed and made conspicuous." Finally this eminent nnd unlmpcnch able committee reaches theso conclusions, conclu-sions, which would soem to sottlo decisively de-cisively the moral side of tho question: ques-tion: "Almost every sort ot liquor legislation legis-lation creates some specific evil In politics, "Legislation to securo tho ends of prohibition Intensities political dissensions, dis-sensions, Incites to social strlfo and abridges the public senso of solf-ro-spectlng liberty. "It cannot bo positively affirmed that any one kind ot liquor legislation legisla-tion has been moro successful than any other la- promoting .rpal temper-So temper-So much for. th. greater morniev- ' ",. ,i Win vjf ' V-' lis, that attend Iprohlblton and testify significantly that It Is by no means "good' for 'the 8fite." Wo "hive fenld nothing of tho secret drinking the addiction ad-diction to baneful drugs,, the 'crime-breeding, 'crime-breeding, "spenk-eastes" nnd similar nameless dives, tho special crop of evils for the Individual and'tlio home, which arc equally chargeable' to prohibition. pro-hibition. These are, Indeed, kliown to all men nnd nsk no commentary. Now, ns to the matertnl-sldo ot jtho question, "Is prohibition jgopd for tho stnte?" This In truth Is 6Yen easier to nnswer nnd clnlms a moro emphatic, empha-tic, negative. A very few facts and figures will suffice to establish our position. ' It Is, of course, to bo tnkon for grunted thnt tho state Is not Indifferent Indiffer-ent to Its mntcrlal prosperity or to any conditions Injuriously affecting the same. Such 'a condition Is brought nbout speedily and Inevitably under prohibition. The North American Review, Re-view, n conscrvntlvo authority, says on this point: "The stntes ot tho Union, without exception, which havo adopted prohibitory pro-hibitory laws, either In whole or In part, have either experienced a material mat-erial decrease In population, or have fallen very far behind . the other stntes In their growth. "In 900 towns locnted In thirty-three thirty-three different states, 644 of them under un-der prohibition or local option laws nnd, of course, legally permitting no liquor to bo sold In them, tho average aver-age tax rate on each $100.00 of valuation val-uation in 1902 was $2.43 In tho prohibition pro-hibition towns, nnd $1.59 In the towns where liquor was permitted. The nvernge, therefore, was . 59 per cent higher In the prohibitum than In tho licensed towns. A similar Investigation Inves-tigation glvos like results ns to routs' and real estato values In such localities." local-ities." North, south, east and west, wherever wher-ever prohibitum gets a foothold, the Immcdlato and certain results, nie Increased In-creased taxes, stagnation ot business and decline of local prosperity. In-crease In-crease of population Is conceded to bo "good for the stato." Well, Malno Is the oldest, tho banner prohibition state. Her population in I860' was 21 02 to tho square mile; thirty years later It was 21.07. How Is that tor prohibition? Is pauperism "good for th,q state?" Sparsely populated Maine, "all dry," at least In theory, has 163 out ot every ev-ery 100,000 of Its people living In almshouses, while thickly populate license New Jersey has only 91 in tho sotuo proportion. So we begin to seo that the tangible inMoiln' fruits ot prohibition iro loss of population, economic ruin and miser, mis-er, ianperlsm, discontent vid crime Nono of these things I?, however, "good tor the state," and In all ot them tho prohibition states have achieved tho head of the coluron. i' nolly, prohibition doprlvo3 the sH'.o of enormous revenue by which many public Institutions of social, charltablq and educational utility are maintained. This revenue cannot otherwise oth-erwise bo supplied without working great hardship to tho people and inviting in-viting a train ot economic dlsordors. Perhaps the fathers of our country know what was "good for the stato," It is certain at any rnte thnt Jeffor son.VradJswi and." Hamilton, wltrl the majorlt'of' out early lawmakers, fa-yored fa-yored and sought by legislation to foster fos-ter tho na'tlve wlne nnd brewing-Industries. And It may be pointed out that In more than ono crlsl-ot our history tho public revenue derived from theso has proved exceedingly 'good for .the .Btate." |