The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1874-07-31
LICENSE oR no LICENSE,
Practical Information Concerning the Ii
censc and Prohia;5ory Systems, fronl Ire
Hon William Baxter, cf Indiana.


hon William Baxter. Of Indiana. - tie
p Tr,-ar,h ". Clok-y. Of MIidl-JOwu.
and formerly OF this city. which gives
,,-,,.-ic.I testimony concerning tie
i,,,,ri,i,,l,- of both the liquor license ana
,'rlJ'iIiror,- systems. a. illustrated by
ii,,.t,,.,I t...t in our neichboring STATE Mr.
Baxter known a. the author ol IN" ID
non. BaNr-r law. writes Mr.. 'lpkeE az
follows: g.,
RICHMOND. IND. June in. lo'4-
FRIEND CLoKEY.-IHy letter % =
-rb int. J. befUr- lHe. saying ! GP. "a
10 vou G.,r some ii-li On the working 80
The Baxter Law. The Cincinnati "f-
7efte !, confusing our Temper nee pro-
pl-. and making making iiIaHy 81 them
ieii,.y. that the LICENSE system l. the
true one to restrain the abuse OF liquor
In Ohio. So far a. your observation
soe-. what feature of the Baxter law l.
il that does the Temperance work in IN
diana. l. it Wien the option goes ior
licenSe.'
Statistics all through Indiana show
that on the account of the great strni-
g4ucv of the law. the evils resulting from
the liquor traffic have been diminished.
But the most decisive effect for good has
been accomplished III those towns and
counties where the local option provision
has been used for prohibition In III
diauaDoliS. Evansville. TeIre Haut,, and
some other cities where the local option
claus. has been applied III favor OF
granting permits, the Improvement has
been comparatively little; whereas i'll
the counties Of Randolph, Henry, Grant,
Wavne. Hendricks and many Others,
where the local option ciaus- has de-
cided against granting permits, or. III
other words decided i'll favor Of prOhl-
bition. the greatest good has been ac-
complished.
In answer TO the iHterrOgatOry, when
YOU framed that law, did you Include
the liberty to decide for license, because
YOU have any faith in license a. Il tenn
perance measme." ] reply No, Tor
was we'll aware that ali license laws are
at best very deceptive, injurious. and
difficult of execution. Ny reasons for
inserting the local option clause were
these: went to the Legislature deter
mined, if possible, to get an improve
ment in our laws for we were suffering
fearfully from the effects of "a license
law. But | soon found that it was out
through that Legislature. ! therefore
concluded TO try the next best thing, viz:
local option" 50 that whenever the
people Of any ward, town or township
were in favor of prohibition. they could
select it. Ia those places where the peo-
pie were in favor of permitting the traf
fic, the law was so charged with penal
ties that it became precarious business
to sell under it profitably.
The result has proved just a. expect
ed. Wherever people have decided MT
to grant permits, the reformation has
been most gratifying. Whenever they
have declared in favor of granting per
mitS, the penalty clauses have, To some
extent, restrained the evils of the traffic.
but there is much less reformation than
in the prohibitory localities. There can
be no stronger proof of the vast superb
Ority of prohibition over that of license,
than has been developed i'll this State by
our local option law.
Touching thy question a. to the rel
ative working of license and prohibition
in the different States:' Imay remark,
that all the reliable evidence is in favor
of prohibition and against license
Take the case of our State: In June,
1855, prohibitory law came into oper-
alton. From June TO December previ-
Gus 1SjD seven months Gnder license.
the records of, the courts show Il com
initials for crime. From June TO De
cember 1865, seven months under pro-
hibitiOn only 80 criminals After the
prohibitory law had been in operation
seven months the Supreme Court, on a
mere technical quibbIe, pronounced it
unconstitutional. 1t therefore ceased
TO operate; mark what followed: From
June TO December 1856, seven months
after prohibition ceased, the comnittals
ran no to 80,
Again: From 1862 to 1872 we had in
Indiana Il license law. 70 procure Il
license under that law a person had TO
prove a good character before the Coum-
ty Commissioners, and show that he was
a proper person TO be entrusted with a
license, pay a license fee, and was re-
strained from selling TO minors, &c. This
was what many people would call
stringent license law. Well, what was
the effect of this law. Did it restrain
the traffic. or the evils resulting there
from? not bit of it. It,iather formed
shield or protection for the dealer to ply
his unholy traffic without let or him
drance. During these ten years of strin-
gent license the number of saloons in
creased six times faster than the polls
As consequence, pauperisn increased
six times and crime nine times faster
than the increase of polls. Whereas. i'll
the State OF Maine, with prohibition,
from 1866 to 1872, her criminals actually
decreased more than one-half, from 2O4
10 100 What more decisive testimony
need be added against license and in
favor of prohibition!
To illustrate this point further: In
December, 1872, with our stringent Ii
cense law, there We're in Indiana 261. $50
polls, 2,049 saloons, 3I5 convicts COM
mitted. In December. 1873. under the
Baxter law, with its local prohibition
provision, &c, there were PCS. Sj4 polls.
j, ,4S7 saloons, and $50 convicts commit
ted. Thus il will be seen that while
saloons increased six times faster than
the polls under a license law. under the
Baxter law. with its prohibitory feature
of local option, &c, saloons decreased
nearly One-third, pauperism and crime
in proportion.
Take the state of Maine: In May, 1851,
her real proeibitory law was passed. I'm
parent. The traffic was rapidly checked :;
poor-houses became empty; houses OF
correction and jails lost their inmates ::
industry and frugatity were everywhere
manifested. The Mayer of Bangor, in his
message TO the Council, april, 1852. said :;
''On the first of July. when | gave no.
tice that should enforce the law, Jos
persons were selling liquor here. T'wen-
ty of then have left the city. of the
remaining IS not one sell openly. The
number of inmates in our almsllouse
and house of correction have been
vastly reduced" Similar testimony was
borne from all parts of the State.
In September, 1865. however, 10y a
vast expenditure of money supplied from
New York, by various secret influences
and an unsleeping organization, the Ii
cense men defeated the prohibition par
ty. Mr. Barnes introduceda a very string
ent license law into the Legislature as a
substitute for prohibition. What was
the result. ''Distillers went 10 work
again: drunkenness and crime rapidly
increased" The evil results of this
stringent license law Wei e so fearfully ap-
parent that in 1857 the Legislature elect
ed We're almost unanimously in favor of
prohibition. \ prohibitory law was
again passed, and has been maintained
ever since. Writing of the effect of that
law, after many years of experience, the
Hon. Woodbury. Devies, of tile Supreme
Court, said: NO observing man who
has lived i'll this State for 20 years and
has had an opportunity to know the
fIcts, can dOubtthat the Maine law has
produced a hundred times more visible