Morning journal and courier., 1882-07-01


Some claim that prohibition really does
prohibit in Kansas and some claim that it
does not. A letter is going the rounds which
throws some light on the dispute. It is as
follows:
CLAY Center, Kan, juno 10, 1S82.-Dear
Friend: write you few lines to let you
know that Received your letter few days
a go. You don't want to Come to Kansas to
start Saloon unless you want to get Busted.
Kansas is a He'll of a Country. [ Just laid
out weeks in Jail for selling Beer, & got
enough of it. P. S. don't come to Kansas to
start Saloon. (Signedl Joe Montel Kas.'
This cannot be called evidence that is pre-
JUDGED in favor of prohibition, and it is there
fore valuable as showing the effectiveness of
the Kansas law. An observer of another
kind has been investigating the workings of
the law and has written down his impress
sions for the New York World. In Topeka
he was able to procure what he wanted to
drink, but he not able to find at any
time of the day or the night at any "grocery"
a crowd of noisy drinkers, nor did he see at
enc of them drunken man. Ono effect of
the law that is soon noticed, says the CORE
pondent, sis that many men of the class
who in other States drink regularly,
but never drink at home, here
drink regularly indeed, and always at
home. do not refer to drinking wine at
table with their families, but to the habit of
regularly taking drink of whiskey two or
three OF four times a day. Two friends, who
in other States would go to dram shop, here
go to the house of one the other for
precisely the purpose" The CORES
fh1S S1po <Io oil, SrT
ka: A single days Investigation is enough to
show that the law is evaded, and in a few
cases openly disregarded, in Topeka. But
there is an absence of the sorry spectacles
that can be seen any day, but better any Sat
urday afternoon or night, in towns in Mis-
souri, or in New York. The barroom is no
longer possibility and the Drunkenness and
the persistent temptation to drink to drunk
enness which is given in most of them have
in the main been eliminated from Kansas
life. Perhaps as great quantity of intoxi-
eating beverages is drunk here as ever, but it
is drunk more decently. So far as prohibi-
ton is concerned, the law, of course, is a
failure. 1t prohibits nothing but certain
coarse and glazing Interruptions of general
sobr1ety that are common elsewhere; and if
1t dlsconrages sin it recognizes secrecy in sin
II the benefits of all doubts about results are
given to the prohibitlonists, the facts remain
that men, even poor men, spend sreal deal
of money for liquors and that the physical
and moral Injuries that excessive drinking
brings remain and continue. The best result
thus far has been the removal of the tempta-
tions to vice of many kinds that bar
rooms give to boys. There are no places
where they can congregate to drink. This is
an indirect but good result. 1t is result,
however, that has been obtained in many
towns in other States by ''local option laws
and, by very high license' laws Indeed
the prohibitory amendment is nothing NOR a
in its effects than local option law. Those
who are "obleeged to have it' will get it in
spite of law, and where there is a unanimous
ly abstemlous community there would be no
dram shops if they were encouraged by law.
From this it is evident that the prohibit
DRY law of Kansas is enforced, and that it has
had marked effect upon the open traffic in
liquor. Tho progress of the experiment. in
Kansas and the working of the prohibitory
law which has just been adopted in Iowa will
be watched with much interest.