Tolland County press., 1883-02-01
PROHIBITION NOT A FAILURE.

PROHIBITION NOT FAILURE. {From the report of the central committee of the
 Conn. Temperance Union)
 One of the strongest influences that is used against the movement for the legal prohibition of the liquor traffic is the ef- fort to make the people believe that 1t has been failure wherever tired and this effort has been too successful. We re. spectfully submit that this is matter that can be fairly considered and that when the truth is demonstrated it will be accepted by all candid minds. Of course those who claim that s'prohibition is Q failure" do not mean, simply, that it fails to annihilate the traffic in alcoholic bey- erages for it is true of every prohibitoryl statute in the penal code, aye, and in the divine code too, that it does not annihllate the crime it prohibits ;s yet i've hear mo- IIsbody charging that they are failures. cept the fact that there are two legal methods of dealing with the liquor traffic I-one called license the other, prohibit ton. Itis claimed for both that they restrict the traffic, and diminish the evils which flow from it. The practical question is Which of these systems results in the most rek triotisni? Happily for the cause of truth, this question can be settled be- yond all consroyersy by the testimony of lofficial lrecords, not madeSnp ia the interest of any theory. It ought to be said, how ever, that prohibition has never been tried under circumst snces and for length of time that gives that clear demonstration in re- gard to it's practical workings which cen turies of license legislation furnish for that system. Certainly it IS more than l IL. A.. IL official records of Maine and Connecticut, because for the past ten years-thanks to | the local option features of our license law -about half the territory of this state has been under the law of prohibition. Ac- cording to the last United States census Maine has 26, ,236 more inhabitants than Connecticut. If prohibition does not re- strict the liquor traffic more than license, it should be larger in Maine than in this state. But, from the report of the United TiStates commissioners of internal revenue, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882, we learn that while Connetticut had z, ,88O retail dealers in alcoholic beveraves Maine had but 991 and 1t is fair to state that g large proportion of these were the town agents authorized to sell for scientific, me- chanical and sacramental purposes. While I Connecticut had 11S wholesale dealers in intoxicating liquors, Maine had but 21.
 While Connections had IA recti6ers, Maine had none. While Connecticut had 87 dis tilleries in operatiap, Maine had none. loperation, Maine had none. The aggre- gate of the special tax paid to the United States government by those engaged in the liquor traffic ip Gonpeeticut, during the last fiscal year, was $81, ,370; by those lin Maine it was $26, 240- little less than lone-third of the amount paid in this state.
 While Connections had one saloon for every 220 of her inhabitants, Name had but one, to every 637 of her inhabitants. l We submit that there is no escape from the conclusion tbat prohibition in Maine restricts the liquor traffic to amYeh great CT extent than license does in this state. Perhaps we ought toi add that similar comparison between prohibitory Vermont and license Connecticut shows like re- suit. s.4xrx, sr-v rxr
 |abont the "failure of prohibition" in Kan sas; but we learn from an official letter from Col. John c. Carpenter, United States collector of internal revenue for the district of Kansas, dated November p, 1882, that during the first eighteen months of prohibition in that state the number of retail dealers who paid special tax to the United States government was reduced more than four hundred :. the number of wholesale dealers, thirteen ]; and the ppm- Der of brewers, twenty -one. Moreover, Governor St. John, under date of Noyem- Der 27, 1882, testifes that "the largest dis tillery that we ever had in Kansas has, under the pressure of the law, left the state, and we have not an illicit distillery to-day within our borders" Again, from the report of the United States commits sioner of internal revenue, we learn that while this state has one saloon for every 220 of her inhabitants, Kansas has one for every 879 of her inhabitants. Clearly, prohibition is not & failure in Kansas.
 After all, what concerns us most is the fact that prohibition has been tried in this state, and it's opponents say, "Eyerybody knows 1t was failure here, that the pro- hibitory law became dead letter on the statue book, and for this reason it was re- pealed in 1872." Bat we say that is not 8 truthful statement. In the first place, prohibition did not have a fair trial in this state. Eighteen years is not long enough, under the most favorable circumstances, to get the full benefit of an entirely new system of dealing with a great evil so thoroughly intrsnched as is the evil of in- temperance, and we can but remsmbsr that while this experiment. was. being tried in this state we were called to pass through those terribly dark years brought upon us by the great civil war, when active efforts ia behalf of every other cause were patri- otically held in abeyance, that all possible strength might be given to the preserva- tion of the dear old flag, Nevertheless, we affirm that it is susceptible of the clear est demonstration, that prohibition was not failure in this state, under such very unfavorable circumstances.
 The prohibitory law was repealed in 1872, and 8 license law substituted in iss place. We have had, therefore, ten years of license legislation since the repeal of the prohibitory law, because it was a 'sdead letter on the statute book" The official records. tell us plainly what the practical effect of this change has been