The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1877-02-22

them. and We have for each man,
woman and child in the United States
for textiles, including cotton goods,
fax and linen goods, carpets, wooien
goods, $I2. 30; for each family OF
500 persons, $G2.Go; for articles OF
wear, including mems, women's and
children's clothing, hats, caps, boots,
shoes, collars, gloves, cuffs, hoop
skirts, and all such, for each person,
S12.91, and for each family $G5.7l,
The shoe bill of the country averaged
to the person, S5.4G; to the family,
$27.79. We paid for wooden goods,
for each person, 1928, and for each
family, $1G.44. That year our liquor
bill was $16,OG for each person, and
$91.74 for each family. Or, if you take
the estimated sales of the 143, 115 grog
shops, say SIT, 775, 900, it will give
about $3.50 for each inhabitant of
the land, and for each family about
$94. 35.
By this exhibit, taking the census
report of sales, we have for each
family $10.14 more for whisky than
for cotton and linen goods; SIC. Oh
more than for articles of clothing
$51.75 more than for shoes; sos. 80
more than for wooden goods.
In the article of food, and for food
and food preparations, there were ex-
pended, 5000, 365, 571, or 1857 for
each person, and $79.25 for each
family; thus, by one estimate, SIS.
more is spent for whisky than for food =;
by the other, $40.
Let any thoughtful man study these
figures, and say whether this fright
full waste of money does not produce
bad trade. Do you not see that every
dollar paid the barkeeper Is taken
from the butcher, the baker, shoe
maker, tailor, and the merchant, and
lost to productive labor. There was
an old tailor in Virginia who was very
fond of his dram; his love of it had
brought him to want. Once, having
half dollar, and being out of both
meal and whisky, he told Mary, his
daughter, to take the bag and the jug
and divide the money equally be-
tween the groggery and the mill 4;
but as she passed through the
gate he said, 'Mary, meal is entirely
too high, spend it all for whisky" So
the miller lost the sale of the meal.
We spend, in Austin, according to the
estimate given US, $500, 900 per annum.
Distribute this sum among the
branches of productive labor and there
is not simple department which will
not be greatly profted.
When we estimate labor, we natural
ly ask, does it increase, or decrease
capital. Non-productive labor dimin-
ishes capital. Capital provides for all
the wants of q community, such as
food, raiment, shelter, implements with
which to labor, and material upon
which to work. All that aids in the
production of these is the capital of
the community. Without capital there
can be no productive labor. 1t is also
Indispensable to the promotion of
physical, intellectual, moral and relig-
ious culture and progress. Whatever
causes an unproductive expenditure of
capital retards progress. This is emf
nently SO with money spent for liquors.
Intoxicating drinks are not necessary
to the procuring of food, raiment,
shelter, to the supplying of the imple-
ments of labor, or to the procuring Of
materials upon which to work. 1t is a
fact patent to all that it is greatly in
the way of the obtaining of them.
If the money expended for strong drink
were turned into other channels of trade
we would not see the great army of
tramps, we would not see our mechan-
les idle, nor our merchants doing moth
ing.
But we are reminded that there are
thousands engaged in this traffic whose
support is derived from it and who
have invested their money in 1t. What
ofthst2 Physicians have, at great cost,
prepared themselves to practice medi-
cine. Shall we import disease to prevent
them losing their money! Lawyers may,
upon the same principle, demand
the passage of such laws as will In
crease litigation. This, you say, would
be an outrage upon the country. So
do we say that the government perpe-
trstes a monstrous wrong in perpetual
ing traffic so notoriously non-produc-
tive as this, simply to find business for
a few thousand llquor-makers and liq-
uor-sellers. The man that lives upon
the products of another's industry does
not create a beneficial demand for
these products. He is no help to the
community, but its destroyer. The
consumption is unproductive, because
the strength derived from this food Is
not used in producing other beneficial
products. The boot-blsck may con-
sumo as much as the barkeeper, but he
adds to the respectability of our ap-
pearance and preserves our shoes; SO
he gives value received for the dime
paid him, but the drink-seller neither
enhances our respectabilty nor pre-
serves our bodies, but the more we deal
with him the less respectabilty we
have and the more our bodies are en-
feebled. But then the money remains
at home and forms q part of the gen.
eral wealth. True, it remains IN the
country. We are sure If the liquor
seller and ourselves were heirs to an es-
tate and we were to say, "We will
take it all; it will still be in the fami-
ly; what does it matter which ore has
iti" he would want his part; and GER
tainly would he the more earnestly
strive to get it, if, in our getting it, we
would entail disease, disgrace and pre-
mature death upon him.
1t is eminently right and proper that
we inquire into some of the uses to