Decorah-posten., 1882-05-24
"CAN IOWA BECOME FREE?,

cipios IOr which nunCredS or thousands OF
our best citizens sacrificed their lives almost
a century later; through the suffering and
sacrifices of these brave men, our constitu-
tional privileges and liberties were main
taihed. And more,-the shackles were
stricken from 100000 of human beings,
who were thus elevated from the depths
and indignities of slavery to the height
and honor of free american citizenship.
We now have no more of the dirine insti-
tuition of human slavery, and very few of
those living to-day, who taught that doc
trine, feel particularly proud of their past
record on that question. The object which
the temperance people of the state desire
to accomplish is a laudable one, and has
my entire and sincere sympathy, but the
mode by which they desire to effect these
grand results are such that | cannot, for
many reasons, co~nscientiously support
them. | am not one who believes in the
doctrine that the act justifes the means,
or that two wrongs will make a right. |
do not believe in overriding constitutional
laws and privileges, the dearest rights of
free American citizens.-"Freedom and
liberty" oonfscation of private property,
honestly and lawfully acquired. And for
what purpose! Only to repeat expert
ments which have been tried time and
again, and always found TO be a total fail
ure. The Rev. gentlemen cite Maine and
Kansas as proof of the glorious results of
prohibition. / should be sorry to believe
these gentlemen would willfully misrepre-
sent facts so well known to n one of
common intelligence, yet l feel that they
are not justified in making assertions
which neither they nor any one else can
substantiate. | beg leave to present a few
official figures, taken from the records, and
which no one, | think, will care to contra
dict, showing actual state of affair as they
in reality exist, in a few of the different
states.
In the state of Maine Total prohibition
the following was the percentage, to the
population, of arrests for drunkenness in
1880: Lewiston OBS, Belfast 0.56, Saco
0.sl, Bidleford 0.82, Rockland 0.94, Bath
LIS, Bangor l.55, Gardiner $50, Augusta
2.01, Portland $50; average arrests 2 &c.
In Iowa partial %prohibition) as follows:
Davenport O.82, Cedsr Rapids LIT, Bur.
lington l.50, Council Bluffs Les, Des
Moines 2.53; average percentage LEO.
In the state of New Jersey Qicense) :
Brighton 0.44, Salem 0.65, Gloucester lis,
Hoboken LIS, Newark I.36, Bayonne
LEO, Camden l.67; average percentage
l.20. Of miscellaneous places have Con-
cord, n. 81. prohibition, but law utterly
disregarded), O.59, st. Louis l.3l, Detroit
Lis, Bridgeport, Conn, l2I, Louisville,
KY, LA, Cleveland, O., 1.87, Montpel-
lier, VT. (prohibition), Isl, New York
City IA, Philadelphia 3.2I, San Fran
cisco 400. 1t will be seen that the most
drunken cities are San Francisco (4.60(,
Portland $780, Philadelphia (3.2l), Des
Moines (2.53l New York (2.44). San
Francisco has a heterogeneous population
from all parts, and many have nothing to
do but enjoy themselves after their fashion,
and that, with many, means drinking.
New York is the metropolis of America;
it has always several hundred thousand
strangers in its midst. Des Moines is
growing very rapidly and is always full of
strangers; but Portland is a small city
that has only increased its population a
little over seven per cent. in ten years.
/ would further call attention to the
report of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor
of Massachusetts, for 1880, which contains
information on this subject, collected by
order of the legislature. From page 90 to
LOG of this report we have the numbers of
convictions for drunkenness, and OF being
common drunkards, from 1870 to 1879 in
elusive. The first five years, 1870 to 1874
inclusive, the state was under prohibitory
law, the next five years, 1875 to 1879, under
license. Under prohibition in five years
there were lO6,082 convictions for drunk
enness ; under license in five years there
were 94,207; decrease under license, 1850
per cent. Under prohibition (page 3l6)
there were 1889 convicted of being com
mon drunkards; under license, 1886; de-
crease under license 1882 per cent.
The above official figures should, in my
opinion, convince any impartial and right
thinking person, that prohibition does not
prohibit the evils of intemperance, but
rather that it has the tendency of creating,
in a large decree, an utter disrespect for
law. Now, as to the right and justice of
this proposed act, I cannot find anywhere,
In human or divine laws, authority to
deprive my neighbor of his private prop
erty without just compensation. Does not
both our state and national constitutions
expressly guarantee to every person "The
right of life, liberty and pursuit of happi-
ness and that "No person shall be de-
prived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law" Have not the brew
ing interests of our state been encouraged
and protected under the laws, the same as
any other legitimate industry? Is it not
as lawful to-day, and has it not been for
twenty-five years, to manufacture beer and
wine in Iowa, as to raise wheat, corn, or
any other produce? Will not this amend
ment, if it should become law, virtually
confscate millions of private property,
honestly and lawfully acquired2 Has not
beer and wine been made for u proper
use? Is there anything in the Christian
Church or in the Holy Scriptures forbid
ding the use of wine and beer, or even
stronger drinks?
If any friends on the other side can an
swsr the above questions satisfactorily, l
will promise to throw one vote, at least.
for the constitutional Prohibitory Amend
ment. Respectfully,
D. o. AAKER.