The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-12-25

some explanation; whether it is not strange
mystery? Does it not suggest that pro-
hibition is not the medicine for this patient?
A few years ago, seeing letter in the
newspapers from General Neal Dow, in which
he declared that prohibition had suppressed
the rum traffic in Maine, went down and
travelled through the State to observe. In
Portland ! walked up and down the wharves
late at night but saw no sign of drink.
visited the principal towns of the State, kept
my eyes open, but saw no saloon, At two
hotels l asked if were sick in the night and
needed little brandy, whether they could
furnish it? They told me they did not sell
liquors. If called upon to testify, should
have said that General BOWS state
ment was true. Some of the friends
of prohibition admitted that there was
still some secret sale, in underground places,
but that the keepers Of such dens were in
mortal fear o. the law, and never allowed
the drinkers to leave their dens in ques-
tionahle condition. 1t seemed a clear case
of triumphant prohibition. But at Augusta
l obtained recent report of the State Pris-
on Inspectors of Maine, from which L
learned that, during the year, II, 808 persons
had been arrested in the State for street
drunkenness. This was an official report, by
prohibition officers. When l recalled that
Maine contained population of less than
700 900, small foreign element, no large
cities, and was mostly devoted to agriculture
and lumber, II 1908 arrests in one year for
street drunkenness was simply appalling.
From that hour l have had no ditiulty in
believing all that has been said about
the cunning tricks of the business in
Maine; about the private drinking clubs
SO in Portland, many of them in large rooms
over stores each mem Der of the club carrying
aspretty key, showing it with pride, and
chuckling over the helplessness of the con-
stable who might come to the door which
that key unlocked ! have had no difficulty
in believing that this has great fascination
for young men, and in believing state
ment made to me in Maine by one OF her
most eminent citizens, warm ProhibitioniSt,
to the effect that prohibition, like other good
things had its draw backs the worst of which
was that great mum Der of the better class
of young men, who would never drink in an
open saloon, had become victims of the
private drinking club. Without undertake
ing TO decide the actual outcome of the strug-
gle in Maine, 1 was convinced that as tempta-
tons, the private drinking methods of that
State were more mischievous than open
saloons.
ENFORCEMENT OF LAW.
Prohibitionists mourn the failure of the
law, but comfort themselves and the public
with the thought that no law can be per-
fectiy enforced; and they constantly affirm,
in public addresses and in the papers that
prohibition is as well enforced as other laws.
In an address in fremont Temple, Boston,
by one of our most eminent advocates of
prohibition, he said:
We do not pretend that the law against drink
is enforced In every case, but this is the fate of
all laws. The law against theft is not always
enforced, and even the law against murder
sometimes tails, This law is enforced as well as
other laws. $3.50 s.a l'3 "a.
The sale by retail of Intoxicating drinks
was the offense under consideration. In
Boston alone the law was violated more than
three hundred thousand times a day-more
than two million times a week. The aver
age punishment for the offense was not more
than one week. One punishment for two
million violations of the law! And yet we
are told that this law was as well enforced
as the law against theft. To illustrate the
utter powerlessness of the prohibitory law,
I may mention that the Proh bition friends
determined to make an example of Harvey
d. Parker and George Young, the proprietors
of the Parker House and Young's Hotel
the most popular hotels in the city
Complete preparations in the way of proof
were made, though as these hotels sold thou
sands of drinks every day without the slight
est pretence of concealment, it would seem
to be quite rs easy to prove the sale, as to
prove the existence of the hotels. Mr. Parker
and Mr., Young were both tried. They were
tried before incorruptible courts, and in both
cases before exceptionally intelligent and re-
spectacle juries. 1t was impossible to con-
vict them, because the juries did not believe
the accused guilty of crime. The law said
they were, but the iuries did not believe it,
and refused to convict them. Itwas only in
those low groggeries, nests of depravity and
rowdyism, that the law was ever enforced,
and there, because of rowdyism.
.a -- PERSONAL LIBERTY
All progress and happiness begin and end
in personal liberty. Prohibitonists say:
I'VE rejoice in the utmost liberty, ii people
will only do right" The Inquisition be-
lieved in the liberty of all men to be
Catholics, but if they found man with other
notions, they put thumb-screw on him.
Our Puritan forefathers we're stout advocates
of personal liberty. They left their homes
crossed a stormy ocean and braved a thou
sand dangers, that they might be free to
think and say what they pleased. And they
were perfectly willing that all who came
after them should be free to think and speak,
unless as sometimes happened, the new men
thought and said things which conflicted
with what the fathers thought and said.
They sometimes came across Quaker with
wrong views, and hung him.
All men are believers in personal liberty
Tor themselves, ana LOT tnOSe VINO agree with
them. Few men are willing to grant the
same liberty to those who differ with them.
Perhaps no man on earth believes in per-
sonal liberty as intensely as the Gar of Rus
STA, but it is liberty for himself Kings and
princes everywhere cherish the doctrine of
personal liDerty-for themselves. The
aristocracies in all lands believe
in personal liberty-for themselves.
The Shareholders of the South
believed in liberty more strongly than any
other men on the continent The whites of
California believe in liberty-for themselves
l need hardly declare that the doctrine of
personal liberty includes as it's subjects all
adult, sane, non criminal human beings. A
government which protects only the liberty
of the car the king, the aristoctat, the
white man, the intelligent man, or the good
man, is not a true government. Rich men,
intelligent, strong men, take care of them
selves The worse the goyernment the bet