Martinsburg independent. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1875-1900, 1881-03-05
"THE OTHER SIDE"

app1dItu ietleT from wheeling,
containing a synoptical report If q
speech delivered in the Legisla-
lure of the State, In opposition to
what is known as "rhe Prohibit
tory Amendment" The amend
ment is proposed change in The
Constitution of the State, prohib-
iting the manufacture and sale of
Intoxicating liquors, except for
medicinal. scientific and mechani-
cal purposes. AS your paper has
never been one-sided in its treat.
ment Of any subject, and as large
numbers of people, who favor pre-
hibition in the way proposed, are
among your subscribers and pa.
irons, | beg leave to offer few
words on the other side of the
question, that Of constitutional
prohibition.
If the speech referred to be cor
rectly reported. it is in the nature
ola plea in abatement. 1t begins
with recognition of the evils of
intemperance, but finds continual
excuse for legislative indifference,
extenuates the evils themselves.
and even closes with an eulogy
upon the liberality OF the present
legislation, which allows large
numbers of Germans and Swiss to
settle among US with their drink
ing habits, of course, as the natural
inference must be, for the temper
perate would prefer State where
prohibition existed.)
Now the question before the Leg
islature was that of permitting the
people to determine for themselves
whether they would incorporate
into the organic law Of this State
a provision prohibiting the man
ufacture and sale of intoxicants;
and, in my judgment. the speech
hardly touches that question at all.
1t DISCUSSES the question of di-
vorces; it discusses the value of
the liquor revenue to the State.
but whether the people ought to
be allowed to say which they pre-
fer, $35. 575 in the State treasury
annually, or a society free from a
curse which sends 10000 people to
drunkards' graves in the world
every year-that the speech does
not pay the cold respect of PASS
ing glance. Itpoints triumphant
ly to the revenue as an excuse for
continuing what is in fact q crime
of the highest grade. so believed
to be by the ablest jurists in Eu-
rope and America, but says not q
word about the saving of expense
by prohibition in the lessening of
criminality and vice; in the dim
mutton Of jails and psnitentiaries,
and in the greatly increased pros
perity and enterprise which would
everywhere follow the wake of
temperance. A picture is present
ed of what would ensue when pro-
hibition was enacted from our sit.
uation as a State. We are sur
rounded by liqur-licensing States,
and our people would run into
Maryland or Pennsylvania or
Ohio flor liquor they aOould have).
Where local option prevails the
people get all the liquor they want.
That reminds me of a man who
would not embrace religious life
on the ground that he was sur
rounded by evil people and it
would be of no use; he could not
maintain his integrity. West Vir-
ginia ought not to be saved be-
cause she is surrounded by bad
sisters. who would furnish the
people with liquor! What an ar
gument! Justitia fiat, c0luna
y,tit' One is amused to hear this
speech opposing the amendment
proposed, and in the next breath
tell the petitioners for the amend
ment that "the power to prohibit
the sale exists, and yet no petit
tions praying the exercise of it
have been presented. If it exists
why doesn't the Senator take steps
to Exercise il ?" Must he be pa
titionsd to do his duty? And if
the power already exists, but is
not exercised, what friend of tenn
perance, or what endOrser of the
existing power could object to a
step which would make that very
power more effectual Forsooth,
when the speaker asks why the
petitioners do not ask for the ex-
ercise of the existing power, re-
ply that is just what they seek to
do by constitutional enactment,
but you refuse the people their
right to determine. Equally
strange does it sound to hear the
speaker first oppose legal action
in the form Of cOnstitutionsI