, 1874-12-19
1TOENgE OF ITO LICEUHE,

The Rev. J. ". HANSON, who fortnight
ngo made his appearance n couple Of times
in tho columns Of LIE tribune in favor Of
Prohibition, is not satisfied with tho result Of
the controversy, but inflicts two end a hnlf
columns more Of it On tho Nc,o Corcnant. a
column mud q half Of it is devoted to showing
the wrongeu!noss, sinfulness, aud crino Of
'slicensing" the snlo Of stinulants. The
TRIBUNE, ho says, proposes to s'liccnse' tue
salo Of liquor:
tho tualurss that qusdruplca than. TfE TRIBUNE
lalcno oyor the prevalence OF poverty aud suffering,
Iita Tn1uuNE scourgcs criminals, but would ucouso
taoso who 1aako tlcnl euch
And so on through column Of tho snmo
oort Of statement. Now, tho fact is, TnE
TRIBUNE hes not snid word for or againat
licensing" tho sale Of liquors, because
drinking goes on nil the same whether saloons
nre licensed or unlicensed. Tho Constitution
Of Ohio has prohibited tho licensing Of tho
sElo Of liquor in TINT State since 1861, whilo
the Constitution Of Illinois dooa not forbid
1t. No saloon is licensed in Ohio; oil Saloons
aro licensed in Illinois. What is the result
Thoro is juat rs much liquor con-
aumcd in Ohio per capita rs in Illinois,
md perhaps more. There is 10 loss drunk
enness thcro tlrn horc, but perhaps more
fully rs much poverty, suffering, md crime
from iuebrietion, aud perhaps more. The
non-hcensing system in Ohio has reformed
no dr11nierd, prevented no one from drink
ing, and nobody from selling. There are
more liquor-shops in Ohio than in Illinois,
because they haYe no tax topny. 1t is s'frcc-
trade" III whisky in Ohio, whoreas there is
tariff on the sGlo III Illinois. From the
liccuse-tax the Cities towns, end counties Of
Illinois derive about half a million Of dol
lars por anaum. In Ohio, no revenue ia OBJ
taincd from thnt source, md tho general tax-
payers have to make up Tho deficiency.
It is gross error Of Mr.. HANSON md his
ehort-sighted clnss to suppose that tho sale
and consumption Of liquors depend upon
withholding Of licenses to vend, when, in
point Of fact, it makes not tho slightest differ
enee whether tho saloons nso licensed Or not
licensed. Tho salo Of liquor depends on the
demand for it. 1t is tho appetite and desire Of
nmillion Of people in Ohiofor liquor Of various
kinds which cause 10000 unlicensed saloons
to be kept opon night and day to supply
them. # these people should tako notion
to quit drinking liquor, all tho saloons in
Ohio would instantly be closed, and their
owners would have to turn their atten-
ton 10 other business. II hnlf tho liquor
drinkers of Ohio abandoned all uso Of
stinaulants, haf tie saloons would shut up
shop, md so in my other proportion like
results would follow. It ia faucifn1
notion that Liquor is sold III Chicago and
Illinois only BY permission Of Inv,
in tho shape Of aicenGo; mud
TINT If such license were withheld no liquor
would be sold by the saloons or drink by the
people. Nothing could 10 moro absurd than
e1oh IN idoa. Abolish oil liquor licenses in
Illinois tomorrow, and the purchasing a,ld
consumption Of liquors will proceed without
cessation or di,ninution precisely as ID tho
caso in Ohio. So long as million Of people
in Illinois want alcoholic beverages aud offer
to pay for them, it does not matter particle
whether the venders are "iconsea" to sup
ply them or not. It is strange that any por-
son claiming to 10 Intelligent Gun suppose
the contrary in the face Of tho faets and tho
nEture Of tho caso.