The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1881-02-23
DOES PROHIBITION PRoHIRIT2

From all quarters comes information with
regard to the operation of prohibitory liquor
laws. In no single instance do they lessen
the consumption of liquor, or improve the
morals of the State where they exist. 1t be
gins to be understood that laws prohibiting
the sale OF Intoxicating liquors is not the
best way to arrest drunkenness. The
State of Michigan is "A case IN
point, and the facts are we'll worthy .af
consideration. The Detroit Post and Tri-
bune in commenting upon the subject, says
that ''in 1874 Michigan had.on its statute
books one of the most stringent ,prohibitory
liqGor laws ever passed by any State" All
that law could do to cure drunkenness was
done, but the law was dead fSilure-in-
deed, something worse than failure.
Drinking increased rather than diminished
under its operation. Governor Bagley gave
the people of Michigan, in his message to
the Legislature in 1875, information as to
the practical results of prOhibitory legisla-
ton. He said:
The United States Revenue Department report
e.444 places in this State engaged in the business
ofselling liquors Their receipts must average
s2o per day each. or over SIS, 100000 per annRm,
sum three times greater than all the taxes of every
nature levied in the State. Four years receipts
would build every railroad in the State.
On the statute books OF the State stands pro
hibitOry liquor law, the constitutiOnality of
which has been affirmed and reaffirmed by the
Supreme Court. which declares this whole bust
ness illegal, and each one of the principals
liable to fine and imprisonment. Not less than
$500 persons daily violating this law. II
5000 or 1900 persons were daily violating the law
TO petit larceny there would bearrests without
number. What makes the difference? Is it not
the fact that public sentiment sustains the enc
and not the other Every good citizen gbhors
drunkenness and shuoGers at the countless evils
that follow in its train. But is it not evident that
the large majority are not in sympathy with our
present legislation. which attempts TO prohitkt it
and so utterly fails in ats ObjeetG There viii
always be drinking and drunkenness Wecsn
not hope by any agency to stop 1t entirely.
But with the moral support of the great teachers
of home school. and press, can we not have the
aid of intelligent legislation that will diminish
the intemperate use of liquOrf Why not recOg-
nize the fact that there Is a difference between
drinking and drunkenness. and put in the stat
utes laws regulating the sale of liquors: &" ;
In behalf OF temperance and sObriety. of good
morals aud manly living, j urge all
men of different opinions to get together ON com
mon ground and make the experiment
The people did get together They found
prohibition a signal failure: and. like sensi-
he people, they abandoned it, and sub
s1.tuted what is known in Michigan as the
License Liquor Tax Law. This was passed
in MS, and in 1877 Governor Bagley again
refereed to the subject in his message. He
said:
The license law of 1879. providing for the regu.
lation az,d taxation OF the liquor traffic has been
IN operaGon nearly two years. 1t was the pur-
pose of the friends Of this not only to regulate
bGs to restrain the traffic i'm strong drink
that had grown TO be, under other laws, the
greatest evil of the day. For the purpose of
asceTs4ining what has been accomplished under
It, addressed the Treasurer of each County,
asking for full details of the operation OF the
present Haense law i'm their respective Counties.
The information received is as near complete as
can be expeched. In 1873 the number assessed as
reported to me was 1914. of these 4,2l5 paid the
tax, amounting to Si2i iG2. II is altogether prob
able that those wIo have not paid have retired
from, the business. In 1876 the number assessed
was 455s OF these $50 are reported as having
paid the tax, amounting to S3s4,SS
The collectors OF CUnitedsss;ates) internal rev