Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1883-08-24
DOES PROHIBITION rROHlBIT1

1t must be evident TO all, that the men
and women who PRESS the cause of temper
ance, do not do so for the purpose of max
ing or snving money by dIminution OF
their taxes or otherwise. This is manifest
from the fact that they spend their time
and money freely without any compensa.
tion, other than consciousness of per-
forming their duty in promoting the well
fare of humanity. They are not inciied to
action by the spirit OF gain but solely by
that Of benevolence. They desire TO di
minsh the use of Intoxicating drinks and
thereby lessen the cum OF human woe and
misery.
Now, il license or the taxation OF the
traffic, will reduce the sale and consumption
oil inioxicants more than any other method
oil dealing with the evil, the friends OF
temperance are ready to adoptlt. But stop
and think moment. Is il not signiii
cant fact that the advocates of license have
never presented an array of figures or even
II single fact, tending to show that n legali
zed traffic diminished drunkenness? II il
could it would most certainly have been
done. ii the facts existed, the mannfac
turers and venders Of intoxicants would
surely have found them in their keen
search for arguments in support of their
callings. But the impre' sion has been
made upon the minds Of thousands by end
A. q tl,at
but they seem incapable Of adducing II
single TACT in support Of their conc.nsion
at least the writer has not seen one.
But the friends of Temperance go farther
and say, that if a prohbitory enactment,
either constitutional or statutory, viii not
restrict the traffic and nse, more etiectivel,
than license or taxation, then they want
none Of it. They believe it will, but they
do not think that prohibition would at once
stamp out and utterly annihilale the traffic.
So long as there are lazy and vicious men
who are willing to live upon the labors Of
Others, 20 long there will be hose who will
violate law either secretly or openly. Aud
now for some of the evidences upon which
that belief is predicated. A prohibitory
in the state Of Maine than in nny other
state or country. What has been its effect?
Let us look at the evidence.
In 1872, Neal Dow, the author of the
law, was in England at time when all
important temperance measure WAS before
parliament. In the debate upon the bill
it was asserted then rs now, that the law
had proved a failure and that there was az
much drunkenness in the state as before
Mr.. Dow was appealed to for the facti;
He wrote to citizens OF Maine for the
facts and here are their responses:
FROM SIDNEY PERHAM, GOV. OF MAINE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
AUGUSTA, Me, june 3, 1872.
My DEAR SIR:-In answer to your in
quiry In regard to the effect Of the Maine
Law upon the liquor trade IN this state,
1 think il safe to say that il Is very much
less than before the enactment OF the law
probably not one-tenth H large. In
some places liquor is sold secretly In
violation of law as mauy other offences
are committed against the statutes, and
the peace and god order Of society but
in large districts OF the state, the liquor
traffic IL nearly or quite unknown, where
formerly II was carried on like any other
trade. Very respectfully you're,
SIDNEY PERHAM, Gov. OF Maine.
To General Neal Dow.
FROM SENATOR'S AND REPRESENTATIVE
J OF MAINE.