The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1881-06-04
PROHIBITION.


lleIltc, we IcpIlHl NtiC lOllOh LIS "
cellent communication from G. b. g.
Rev. C. B. Galloway, of Vicksburg,
we suppose to the New Orleans Id
rOcate. We commend it to all classes
of readers. The writer says:
The Hon. L. l.. Mellen has published
two articles in the AdrOcate on tenn
perance-the first a defense of the no
tOrious "pint law" passed by the last
Legislature of Mississippi. He says
that the Legislature took a ''practi-
cal view" of the whole temperance
question, and seeing that prohibition
did not prohibit passed this law in
the interest of the public revenue.
He denies that the operation of the
pint law" has increased intemper-
ance and consequent evils, and vigOr-
ously opposes the policy of illegal sua-
sion" to arrest the sweep of drunken
ness and debauchery over the land.
Honestly believing his article errone
Gus and harmful in its teachings, this
is written to state another view, leav
ing the AdrOcdte readers to decide
which is right and most practical"
In the first place, Brother Mellen
and his Legislature started out with
the assumption that prohibition will
not prohibit" Here we join issue and
make positive denial. This has not
been the history of prohibition. True,
political papers here and there with a
chronic weakness for whisky have re-
peatedly so stated, but facts and fig
ures disprOve the bold assertion and
assumption. PrOhibitory laws, in
their effective administration, will
compare favorably with any criminal
statutes of the country. Violations
occur, but the criminal records of the
courts reveal the same sad facts as to
other laws. Prohibition may not be
absolute, but is not the same true of
laws against larceny, arson, man
slaughter and murder? Suppose the
Legislature should say, seeing these
laws do not prohibit crime, we will
take practical view" and license such
criminals sin the interest of the public
revenue" there would be no more log
ical inconsistency than i'll the reasons
given for advocating and passing the
"pint law" Legislation against crime
has never been, and possibly nevers
will be, absolutely prohibitory; but is
it, therefore, not effective and necessa-
ry? Such is the logic of the pint
law" But let us glance at the facts of
history and see if prohibition does not
prohibit. Whether we look at the
State of Maine, or any county in any
State that has adopted a local option
or prohibitory law, the result is the
same. Statistics show that not one
tenth as much liquor, proportiOnately,
is consumed in Maine as there was
forty years ago. Fifty years ago over
two gallons of rum were manufactured
in the State to each inhabitant. To-
day there is not distillery or brewery
in the State. Gov. Perham said, in
1873: at is probable that less intOxi-
eating liquors are drank in Maine
than in any other place of equal pop
ulation i'll the country, perhaps in the
civilized world" Hon. VIM. p. Frye,
now United States Senator, says: Il
can and do, from my own personal
observation, unhesitatingly affirm that
the consumption Ofintoxicating liquors
in Maine is not to-day One-fourth as
great as it was twenty years ago. In
my opinion our remarkable temper
ance reform of to-day is the legitimate
child of the ldiC." Senator Morrill,
writes: II have the honor unhesita-
tingly to concur in the opinions ex-
pressed in the foregoing by my col
league, Hon. Mr.. Frye" Hon. j. A.
Blaine, now Secretary of State, says:
Il concur in the foregoing statements,
and on the point of the relative
amount of liquors sold at present in
Maine and in those States where a
system of license prevails, L am very
sure, from personal knowledge and
observation, that the sales are imneGS-
urdblu less in Maine" Hon. Hanni-
bal Hamlin, ex-senator and ex-Vice
President of the United States, says:
81 concur in the statements made by
Mr.. FRYE. In the great good pro-
duced by the prOhibitOry liquor law
of Maine, no man can dOu6t who has
seen its results. 1t has been of i'm
mense value" And all the other Con-
gressmen from that State publish
their unqualified concurrence. Now,
with such positive testimony from
such trustworthy witnesses, who can
say that prohibition does not pro-
hibit?" If we look at the several
counties in Maryland that have tried
local option, we find the same crafty
inc results. In the counties of Wor-
cester, Dorchester, Caroline, Somer-
set, Calvert, Prince George, Queen
Anne, Montgomery and others, drunk
enness and crime have greatly de-
creased, aims houses have fewer i'll
mates, the poor have become more
prosperous. and in one or two in
stances, the office of jailOr has become
sinecure. This is history, genuine
and authentic. Christian men should
be slow to believe the unwarranted
and wild declarations and ridicule of
the whisky power and its organs.
The practical view" of the Legisla-
ture in stressing the idea of revenue in
the passage of the pint law" is doubt
full as to its political wisdom and pos
itively wrong in morals.
/. As a pOlittcO-ecOnOmic measure,
| it is doubted if the aggregate revenue
be increased farthing. When we
consider the increased expense of
criminal courts, made necessary by
| the drunkenness and crime resulting
from this law, it is just possible that
| the balance will be on the debit side.
That this law has increased crime is
the testimony of good citizens in
nearly every section and community
of the State. The Grand Jury of AL
corn county, among other things, re-
ported the following: eve would fur
Their report that we find crime on the
increase, as we believe, caused to a
great exent, by tho operation of the
pint liquor law" A similar report
was made by the Grand Jury of Lau-
derdale county. Now, when we con-
slider the fees of district attorneys, the
per diem of grand jurors, petit jurors,
witnesses, clerks, sheriffs, ETC., a very
few such cases would more than con-
sumo the pint law" revenue of
whole county.