Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-02-15
TELLING POINTS FOR FREEDOM
The Bill Indefinitely Postponed by a
Vote Of 40 to IS.
HE LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS.
Considerable General Business Trans
acted in EOth Houses
PROHIBITION.
DEFEAT OF THE MEASURE,


United at a special election to be held in
June, prohibiting the manufacture and
sale of Intoxicating liquors. In anticipa-
ton of the discussion the gallery was filled
with spectators, while the outside aisles of
the chamber were comfortably we'll filed.
Among these latter we're the Rev.
Mr.. Satterlee and many lady temper
ance workers from Minneapolis, friends
of the cause from ST. Paul cutting a small
figure.
Called to order, as in committee
of the whole, the speaker announced the
order. the prohibition bill, whereupon Mr..
j. E. Child moved that when the committee
rise it report the bill back with the rec
ommendation that it do pass. In sup
port of his motion he said that on the one
hand there was millions of property en-
gagged in the liquor business,
and on the other hand, the
moral good of society. He be-
believed if the people engaged in the bus
mess should speak their honest sentiments
they would favor abolishing the traffic in
liquor. In 1862 the liquor interest began
to make the question one of politics by re-
solving to bring a pressure to bear upon
Legislative bodies, as opposed to what was
termed the temperance fanatics. In 1861
it was further resolved by this power that
they would use all their power to put
down the temperance workers, through po-
IiticaI cooperation. In 1868 they held
another congress and resolved to con-
tinue their warfare upon the puritanical
temperance party, as the temperance
workers were termed.
By this course the question of temper
ance has been great political issue. In
1867 the Republican party of Minnesota
resolved that prohibition could not be le-
gally enforced by statutory enactments, in
which position it was followed by the ma
tional Republican convention. AS to the
position of the Democrats it
need only be said that they never have
taken any other position than that there
should be free liquor and abundance of it.
The liquor men, and the politicians,
take the ground that we have no right to
pass prohibitory liquor law, because of
lUS U6luR III COHllICI Will pOISOldl llOGIUys
The prohibition party believes that this
traffic can be legally abolished, and tn at
it ought to be. The speaker then
read from some newspaper statistics
showing that $600,000,000 were spent for
liquor, and less than half that sum for the
education of the children of the land.
Statistics also show, he said, that more than
10000 persons are killed annually by in
temperance. Then there are $4,000 Grim
inals in our iails, of whom 80 per cent.were
sent there by alcohol, and there are $4,000
boys in our reform schools sent there by
the drunkenness of parents. Then we have
100000 homeless and fallen women,
made so by strong drink.
This question of the right to prohibit
the sale of liquor is nothing new, nor the
cry of personal liberty with which it is
met. It is the old, old story, carried to its
usual sequence that if the traffic in liquor
can be prohibited, the same power can say
what one shall eat or wear, thus drawing
the attention away from the real issue, of
how best to regulate and control this
traffic. No one denies the right to regu-
late it in the interest of public morality.
The proposition advances no new theory,
being an almost exact copy of the Maine
law in force for more than twenty years.
Its legality has been affirmed by the lead
ing jurists of England and America. No
one questions the power to prohibit the
evil of gambling, and the very principle
enunciated in the bill has been recognized
by the local law in operation in the state.
The law also makes it illegal to sell liquor
to an Indian, but allows it to be dealt out
to whites. Then the law prohibits the sale
to minors, equally against the principle of
personal liberty or prohibition.
One great trouble in this matter is the
cross roads politicians. These fellows say
we believe in prohibition, but if we sup
port it we will be politically damned.' And
it's true, and if was a mere politician
would not dare to take the position l am
now doing.
Another class of DIRECTORS are willing to
prohibit intoxicating liquors, but insist
upon the retention of wine and beer, a
plan that opens the door to systematic
fraud. Further, believe the worst drunk
a man can have is on lager beer. Men
drink wine and beer for the alcohol there
is in them. Take the alcohol out and only
swill is left.
Another class of opponents are those
vino favor hcense-a class l believe who
favor it for the money in it. This license
makes every man a partner in the traffic.
The man who stands behind the bar and
deals out the poison, is no worse than the
one who deposits his ballot in favor of
license. 1t IS a partnership affair all
through, and makes the whole country one
of liquor sellers and abetters.
Another class are known as moral sua-
sionists. They say they don't believe a
man can be made good by legisla-
zion, and they propose to reform
:le world by moral suasion. Law is moral
suasion par excellence, thefgreat educator
by and through which evil is restrained
and crime punished. The liquor traffic is
profitable, and so long as it is profitable
it will be dealt in. 1t is preat political
power shaping the policy OF states and of
the nation, so strong in the notion that il
oold,y goes into congress and demands to
have the taxes upon millions of the pro-
duct abated for years.
Another class say that prohibition does
not prohibit; that the sale of liquor
goes on the same as before
prohibition was passed. We
might as we'll say that cultivation does moi
Cultivate because weeds spring up after E
cron And if these liquor men believe. a:
the claim. that more HuuOr is sold r11dei