The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1874-07-29
LICENSE OR NO LICENSE,
THAT Is THE QUESTION.
Baxter Of Indiana ON the subject.

THAT is THE QUESTION.
Baxter OF Indiana ON the Subject.
The following letter from the Hon.
William Baxter of Ind, to the Rev.
j. W. Clokey of Middletown, in reply
to his inquiries, will doubtless be read
with interest by many of our readers,
as it is we'll known he is the author of
the famous Indiana Baxter Law"
RICHMOND, June 10, 1874.
FRIEND CLOKEY:-Thy letter of
the 7th inst is before me saying, L app
peal to you for some light on the
working of the Baxter law. The Gin
cinnati Gazette is confusing our tenn
perance people, and making many of
them believe that the license system
is the true one to restrain the abuse
of liquor in Ohio. So far as your OBJ
servaticn goes, what feature of the
Baxter law is it that does the temper
ance work in Indiana? Is it when
the opposition goes for prohibition, or
when it goes for license?
Statistics all through indiana show,
that on account of the great stringen-
cy of the law, the evils resulting from
the liquor traffic have been diminish
ed. But the most decisive effect for
good has been accomplished in those
towns and counties where the local
option provision has been used for
prohibition. In indianapolis, Evans
Vile, Terre Haute, and some other
cities where the local option clause
has been applied in favor of granting
permits, the improvement has been
comparatively little; whereas in the
counties of Randolph, Henry, Grant,
Hendricks and many others, where
| the local option clause has decided
against granting permits, or, in other
words, decided in favor of prohibition,
the greatest good has been accomplish
| ed.
''In answer to the interrogatory,
When you framed that law, did you
+, include the liberty to decide for IL
cense because you have any faith in
license as a temperance measureY
reply NO! for l was well aware that
all license laws are at best very decep.
tive, injurious and difficult of execu.
ton. My reasons for inserting the
local option clause were these: l went
to the legislature determined, if posi-
bic, to get an improvement in our law
for we were suffering fearfully from
the effects of license law. But
soon found tina: it was out of tn,
question to get a prohibitory Law
through that legislature. therefor,
concluded to try the next best thing
viz: local option SO that wheneve
the people of any ward, town or town
ship were in favor of prohibition, the
could select it. In those places wher
the people were in favor of permittin
the traffic, the law was SO charge,
with penalties, that it becomes pre-
carious business to sell under it profit
ably;
"'Ihe result has proved just as I ex
pected. Wherever the people hav
decided not to grant permits, the re
formation has been most gratifyin.
Wherever they have declared in favo
of granting permits. the penalty clause
have to some extent, restrained tn
evils of the traffic, but there is muc
less reformation than in the prohib
tory localities. There can be u
stronger proof of the vast superiorit
of prohibition over that of licens
than has been developed in this Stat
by our local option law. a
Touching thy question as to I
relative working of license and pr,
hibition in the different states? m;
remark, that all the reliable eviden,
is in favor of prohibition and again
license.
J Take the case of our State:
June 1855 a prohibitory law came in
operation. From June to Decemb
previous (1S54) seven months und
license, the records of the courts sho
II committals for crime. From Ju,
to December of 1855, seven mont
> under prohibition only SO criminal
:, After the prohibitory law had be,
Q in operation seven months the S
y preme Court, on mere technic
: bubble, pronounced it UNconstitutio
: al. 1t therefore ceased to opera,
mark what followed: From June
December 1856, seven months aft
t prohibition had ceased, the comm
/ tails ran up to so!
: again: From 1868 to 1872 we b.
in Indiana, a license law. To procu
/ llccnSc uuueT IHdJ law person IL
y to prove a good character before t
J, County Commissioners, and show tn
u he was proper person to be entru.
}. ed with license, pay license f;
r and was restrained from selling to II
II nors &c. This was what many peoI
: would call a stringent license la
- Well, what was the effect of this la
. Did it restrain the traffic, or the ev
Q resulting therefrom? not a bit of
It 1t rather formed shield and prote
d ton for the dealer to ply his unhC
b traffic without let or hindrance, Du
q ing these ten years OF stringent liccr
= the number of saloons increased s
: times faster than the polls. Asaco
. sequence. pauperism increased s
times and crime nine times faster tn
n the increase of polls. Whereas in t
d State of Maine with prohibition. fir,
q 1866 to 1872 her criminals actually
v creased more than one half, from
- - to 100. What more decisive testimo
- need be added against license and
favor of prohibitiOn2