The Douglas independent. [volume] (Roseburg, Or.) 187?-1885, 1883-05-19
PROHIBITION vs.. LICENSE.

| the INDEPENDENT [ find an article en-
titled ssLicensa vs.. Prohibition" In
the first paragraph of your article We
are told the reason why yoar space has
been taken up with the discussion Of
this question, which is another way Of
stating that you dissent from the prop
osition TO restrict the liquor traffic to
the extent of prohibiting entirely, your
editorial being in the form of al apol-
ogy for the sentiments expressed by
the contributors to youl paper on the
! Affirmative of this question. am glad
TO note that you, in common with all
people OF discernmsnt who care for the
future of our already gteat State, have
noted the denoralizing effects Of the
drinking habit upon society at large,
but am somewhat srrprised that your
legal acumen should not have told you
your first paragraph was a contradiction
of any statement that our form of civil
government was endangered by at
tcmpts to set up legal barriers against
the great tide Of intelnpcranee.
If you will only turn to the pream-
ble to the Constitution Of the United
States you will find ths language
Promote the general welfare as
capable of such construction that the
prohibitionists are hardly open to the
charge of wanting to override the fun
damental law. Take but jnst one Of
many cases illustrating this part OF cur
position. A drunken man fires your
property and destroys it. The man
sober nsay be aw-abiding citizen, bat
crazed with liquor he becomes fclon
Do I understand yeu to say there is no
remedy ether than what the law pro
vides to punish wrons-doing; or that
VIC menace civil liberty by the promul-
cation of such doctrines In govern
mental affiairs? to use your own Ian
guage Ii this is so where 10 Legis-
latures get their authority for enacting
laws against carrying concealed weap-
ons? IF prohibition "menaces civil
liberty" why is not The result the same
when the free born American citizen is
denied the inalienable right of making
Il walking arsenal of himself? 1t
would be very easy to prove that ten
fold more persons have bsen irrepara-
bly injured since the settlement of Or
egon by whisky, than by The unlawful
using Of pisto!a
| In the last psragrapA you say you
are surprised to see the various temper
ance organizations, after their repeated
failures at prohibition, join hands with
the rumselleys in denying this right tc
the civil government, meaning the
right to tax and regulate the business
of saloon-keeping. AS ! understand
the prohibitionists, they take that 20
ston because Of the moral obliquit]
arising from throwing around this grea
wrong the sheltering arm Of the law
They would take the same positio:
upon the same grounds, were it here
proposed to license the companion O
grog-shops-sambling houses or othe
places of questi ionable resort. It vii
be news to many that prohibi
. ton is failure It is only too tru
, that 1t has not entirely removed th
f cause, but It is also true thnt the plal
/ has SO far lessened the evil az to mefi
o consideration at oGr hands. The groa
States Of Georgia and North Carolin
have recently wheeled irto line witt
Elaine and other prohibition common
weaIths. If prohibition is failure til
e brainy meil who we're in the Legislr
{ lures of these States, ,uust have bee
Y aware of it, since it is long tried rem
Y ody, and would have made hasts sowl
to cun1ber their statute books with
S useless law. 1ir. Editor, just "Com
d up to the help of the Lord against tn
mighty" and the people of Oregon Wi
give your paper such boom as ha
o not been enjoyed since the aborigin
i built his last campfire on the hills {
old Umpqua.