The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1878-01-17
WHOLE NO. 1895.



Tho viror with which Or. Crosby
pushes his movement against tho rrog.
shops g. shown by the fact Of the forma.
ton Of a thousand auxiliary focietica.
aud by his confident prediction that tho
legislature win not materially change
tho law. The law i nov perfectly plain.
and. In Dr. Croabya judgment u ia fully
adequate TO the suppression 81 most OF
the rrorahopa 10 provides that liquor
shall be sold 20 bc drunk on the prcmi.
sos only TO those who arc licensed 90
keep n hotel. and 10 defines what shall ho
con idcrCd 10 BE- a hotel There are aomo
ten thousand rror shops IN the city Of
New York. four hiths ol which are with.
out license. aud at least nine tcntha Of
the crime and nn immense part ol tho
suffering from poverty spring from tho
drunkcunCss which j. begun and main
tanned by the eror rshops But Dr.. Cros-
by treats tho subject "a a tax payer. not
aa moral rciormcr Here are thousands
OF men engaged in on Illegal trade which
doubles aud trCbles the taxes. aud hc
cxhorts ell good citizens - unite Ia en-.
forcing the law, aal thereby IN reducing
tax ton.
With great address ho turns their own
guns upon the ohicctors For instance.
20 d asserted that the whole subject j. In
a great muddle But there ia no muddlo
whatever except In tho brains Of the
officers % the Law who are bound % en-
force g. and who are muddlcd iu m
effort 90 avoid their plain duty The law
is very simple. a. tho Court Of Appeals
has shown, aud tho Mayor has taken
action against the police Commissioners
Tor their muddlcd conduct iu altcruaia
disregard and vehement partial enforce
mcnt Of tho law. Nobody is in n middle
except those who do not wish 90 observe
tho law. 10 Is alleged. also. that % license
hotel bars and % clorc the corner Erog.
rcrics ia 10 favor the rich az tho expense
Of tho poor. On the contrary. Tho move.
meut Is IN defense Of the poor. Tor tho
rrog shops are kept for the sole purpose
Of picking the poor mans pocket of his
money by those who will listen neither
20 reason nor conscience. The arrumcnt
| i perfectly simple. 10 people have a
right % drink what they please. 20 has
tho tax paying community an equal
| right 10 reduce taxation b. enforcing
public order and safety upon well Fccog-
ni1rd principles. Nobody denies tho
right Of the community % regulate tho
manui alure and sale Of ardent spirits ~
u does those oi gunpowdcr And The
ground Of the regulation ia the ramo In
both cascs-that. without careful super
vision. and from their very nature. thcy
eudnneer lie aud property.
Tho Lrrialnture VIII undoubtedly have
% face a demand for the repeal of tho
law But the friends of tha law have an
admirable case. For thc present Law u n
license law with conditions that secure
come degree % responsibility IN the sell.
cra oi liquor it authorizes. also. fully az
many places Tor the sale aa the order Of
ihc city can D. supposed 20 tolerate 10
viii not b. easy % show the impossibiliiy
1i enforcing the Law except hy Arguments
that would be- hostile % any restrictive
law whatever. The question Is aubstan.
iially between tho law aud free rum 10
is not one that politicians like 90 touch.
But the Legislature viii doubtless have
1n opportunity 30 deal with it