Los Angeles daily herald., 1874-06-23
The Struggle and the Effect.

In both San Francisco and Sacra-
mento the opposing hosts-the advo-
Gates and opponents of liquor license
are marshaling their hosts for q trial
of strength in a confession which much
depends, and the result of which
makes and breaks thousands. From
a moral standpoint the strongest argu-
ments are made against the use of i'm
toxicating beverages. Such argu-
ments have always been made, and
will continue to be made so long as
men get drunk. The lifelong topper
never attempts to argue in favor Of the
moral effect of intoXicatiOn. The
whisky manufacturer and the whisky
seller never assume that the world is
made better or wiser through drink.
All concede the moral effect Of tenn
perance, and nothing need be urged in
that direction. From a commercial
standpoint the question is more debat-
able, aud it is from this standpoint the
advocates of license obtain their
strongest, in fact, their only argument.
Let us glance at the main features of
the defence. For the man whose occu-
patton is that of selling whisky, moth
ing is offered in extenuatiOn. He may
turn his attention to some other busi-
ness, but the liquor trade is shown to be
closely identified with and to greater
or less extent to affect almost every
other branch of commerce. Even the
farmers products find a ready market
in the distillery. The discontinuance
of the whisky manufacture in this
State cannot but affect the wheat
market. Nearly every gallon of wills.
ky made in the State is produced
from wheat. A large proportion of the
annual barley crop is consumed in the
manufacture of beer. The value Of
the hop is rated by the demand for the
article at the breweries. When we
drink only water. those of our citizens
who have devoted all their means and
years of labor to the cultivation Of vine
yards have thrown away their money
and labored to no purpose. No license
strikes heavy blow at glassware
establishments, cooper shops, furniture
dealers and numberless other indus
tries. That it will bankrupt thous-
ands an greatly reduce the trade of
thousands of others is foregone con-
clusion. Should San Francisco vote
no license, certain class of rents and
real estate will depreciate at least
twenty-five per cent. The general
adoption of the o-license proposition,
throughout THE State, will work a rev.
olution in our commercial interests
perhaps produce financial panic.
These are the arguments in favor of
license. They are strong or weak as
once chances to regard them. We
neither champion or combat them.
Another count in the arraignment Of
Local Option may be looked at. 1t is
submitted that license or no license is
not fiat for or against liquor drink
ing; that it will not prevent intoxica-
ton nor induce sobriety; that it
merely determines how men shall
drink, and how men shall sell whisky;
that it cannot affect mems appetite,
and that drinking and intoxication
will continue much the same, no mat
ter which way the people decide. If
this is true, the argument that the
wheat, wine and hop growers will
lose through no license, falls to the
ground, for if the consumption of
liquor is not affected by no license,
demand for articles used in the manu-
facture of liquor will not be decreased
by it. If the last named count has
any strength it lies in the assumption
that morality and temperance cannot
be legislated into people. The Leg
islature may say that man shall not
sell less than given quantity of
liquor, but no statutory enactment
will prevent man drinking whatever
beverage his appetite or inclination
prompts. The lesson of experience is
that we can only change a mans ma
ture through moral suasion and by the
teachings of example. The moral
effect Of no license is good so far as APP
pearance goes, but its real moral effect
can only be demonstrated by a
thorough trial. It's commercial effect
may be as disastrous as set forth in
the arguments recapitulated above.
That, too, needs demonstration, and
the people seem inclined to give both
propositions thorough test.