West Virginia freeman. (Parkersburg, W. Va.) 1881-1886, 1881-03-23
THE AMENDMENT.
We reproduce in full the follow
lowing article from. the Martins
burg Independent, entitled:
'The Other Side"
Eds. Lde9enhht:


appeared a letter from Wheeling,
containing d synoptical report of a
speech delivered in the Legislature
Of the State, in opposition to what
is known ii, "The Prohibitory
Amendment The amendment is
a proposed change in the Constitu-
ton Of the r.,.te, prohibiting the
manufacture and sale of intoxica-
ting liquors, except for medicinal,
scientific and mechanical purposes.
AS your paper has never been one
sided in It's treatment Of any sub
ject, and as large numbers of peo-
pie, who favor prohibition in the
way proposed, are among your sub
scribers and patrons, beg leave to
offer few words on the other side
of the question, that ofconstitution-
al prohibition.
If the speech referred to be cor
rectly reported, it is in the nature
of plea in abatement. 1t begins
with recognition of the evils Of
intemperance, but finds continual
excuse for legislative indifference,
and even closes with an eulogy up
on the liberality of the present leg
islation, which allows large num-
bers of Germans and Swiss to settle
among us with there drinking hab-
it's, of course, as the natural infer
ence must be, for the temperate
would prefer State where prohibit
ton existed.)
Now the question before the leg
islature was that Of permitting the
people to determine for themselves
whether they would incorporate in
to the organic law of this State q
provision prohibiting the manu-
facture and sale of intoXicants; and,
in my judgment, the speech hardly
touches that question at all 1t dis
cusses the question Of divorces; it
discusses the value ofthe liquor rev.
enue to the State but whether the
people ought to be allowed to say
which they prefer, $35.575 in the
State Treasury annually, or socie-
ty 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 passing glance. 1t points tri
umphantly to the revenue as an ex-
cuse for continuing what is in fact
a crime of the highest grade, so be-
lieved to be by the ablest jurists in
Europe and America, but says not
word about the saving of expenses
by prohibition in the lessening of
criminality and vice; in the dimi-
mutton Of jails and penitentiaries,
and in the greatly increased pros
perity and enterprise which would
everywhere follow the wake Of tenn
perance. A picture is presented of
what would ensuc, when prohibi-
ton was enacted, from our situation
as a State. eve are surrounded by
liquor-licensing States, and our peo-
pie would run into Maryland or
Pennsylvania or Ohio (for liquor
they uould 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 surrounded
by evil people and it would be Of
no use he could not maintain his
integrity, West Virginia ought
not to be saved because she is sur
rounded by bad sisters, who would
furnish the people with liquor!
What an argument "JuStitia fiat,
c0lesm ruit" One is amused to hear
this speaker, opposing the amend
ment proposed, and in the next
breath telling the petitioners for the
amendment that "the power to pro-
hibit the sale exists, and yet no petit
tions praying the exercise oft have
been presented" If it exists why
does not the Senator take steps to
Exercise it ?" Must he be petit
toned to do his duty? And if the
power already exists, but is not ex-
ercised, what friend of temperance,
or what endorser of the existing
power could object to a step which
would make this very power more
effectual ? Forsooth, when the speak-
err asks why the petitioners do not
ask for the exercise Of the existing
power, Ireply, that isjust what they
seek TODD by Constitutional enact