Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1883-01-17
Local Option VS.. Prohibition.

In recent article in the AdUdnce, entitled
Constitutional Prohibition, there is express
sion of some alarm at the seeming defeat of
prohibition at the late Iowa election. The
fact that maiorities for constitutional pro-
hibiton are now small is only an evidence
that public sentiment on this question is adj
vancing, since but few years ago we did
not even have small majorities. We cannot
conclude constitutional prohibition tested
by small majorities, they are only test Of
sentiment on the question.
To overthrow the principle of constitu-
tional prohibition, it is necessary to prove it
non-effective where it has had something
which approaches a fair test. We admit
that there is difficulty in the enforcement of
prohibition in large cities; but it has been
demonstrated that the traffic in such cities
is materially lessened, is made less respect
able, and in some of them we are authorize
lively informed that the prohibitory law is
as well enforced as the laws against gam
bling, stealing, and other crimes II law is
not an educational force, then indeed the
government which gives such law is pitt
able one. The statement by " Prohibition "
that predominant public opinion in many
places does not admit that liquor-selling is
crime at all, and the only effect upon such
communities of declaration of that kind is
to embitter tbem," does not meet the case.
In the first place, such communities are
rare. Most men, even saloon-keepers, admit
that the traffic as carried on is a crime.
Again, you cannot pass any law against
crime without you embitter the criminal.
Local option is suggested as remedy for
our ills. 1t is good, we admit, as a halfway
measure-better than no law. But it has
been tried in many states, and what are the
results We tried it in Iowa. In few
communities, where there is an overwhelm-
ing temperance sentiment, it has worked adj
mirably; but where there is only small
temperance majority, the subject is always
under advisement, is endangered by local
business interests, by weak officers and per-
sonal animosites, and does little or no good.
This is the situation of most communities.
Besides, the rural districts are subject to all
the temptations and bad influences, and
must pay the taxes resulting from ltigations
which the town may elect In general,
what has local option done to check the
great tide of intemperance
Judge Pitman, in his " Alcohol and the
Stats makes several very pointed objec
tions to local option. He says: "The
state is the normal unit of sovereignty, and
it is opposed to sound theories of govern.
ment to transfer to local fractions the de-
cision of question of such general and far.
reaching Importance as the policy to be pur.
sued toward the liquor traffic. If the drink
traffic is indeed the destroyer of national
wealth, the clog that drags down labor, the
poisoner of the public health, the enemy
of the home, the feeder of pauperism, the
stimulant of crime, the foe of Christian
civilization, and the degenerator of the
race, the state clearly owes to each com.
munity of its citizens its best wisdom and
its most persistent energy in the repression
of such a traffic and it may not rightfully
or even prudeptly abandon the virtuous, or
for that matter, the vicious, anywhere to
the rule of a debased locality. 1t is as il
the famous Five Points of New York City
were allowed to establish their own code Of
criminal laws. What can be voted
up or down by the people of village or a
county, what is right in one district and
wrong in another, loses all moral signifi
cance."
Local option will not accomplish that
which is now so imperitive. | ask "Pro
hibition for something better to offset the
objections which may be justly made to con
stitutional prohibition.-Rev.J. w. French