Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1883-08-07

tice in public. Such condition Of things
is strong proof that prohibition is sue
cess.
II in the case Of many, drinking is Sc
cret and unavowed instead of being pub
lie and avowed, the community-espec-
tally the young who are influenced by ex-
ample-are the gamers rather than the
losers. 1t is not hypocricy for man to
drink in secret and conceal this habit from
the world, out Of respect to what his con-
science tells him is a better and more
commendable course Of life or when a
drinking man favors laws prohibiting the
dram-shop, simply because he does not
want his children to be subjected to its
temptations. Even if it were in some
particular cases, it should be borne in
mind that hypocrisy is the tribute which
vice pays to virtue, and the only way to
Danish it is to abolish virtue. Would
directors to prohibition introduce license
and popularize public drinking habits in
order that there may be no occasion for
some drinking men to conceal their prac.
tices and lead their friends to believe
them free from such habits
TESTIMONY OF THE LIQUOR INTEREST.
8. 1t is strong presumptive proof that
prohibition seriously diminishes the sale
and consumption of liquor, that the liquor
interest everywhere and under all circom-
stances opposes this policy, and favors il
cense instead. This interest knows what
the truth is in the matter, and if it was
the fact that more liquor is consumed I'M
der prohibition than under license, as it
claims for effect, we may rest assured that
it would champion prohibition.
The fact that the liquor interest stout
ly opposes, and for eight years has de-
feated every attempt Of the friends often.
perance to have Congress provide for
careful official investigation Of the liquor
traffic and the working Of prohibitory and
license laws, shows that the men engaged
in this business know that official Stats
tics would show in very clear light that
prohibition is far more effective than Ii
cense.
The friends Of temperance desire simply
to know the truth to have the fullest
light in order that they may pursue the
course whichis clearly the most effective to
restrain the temptation Of the dram shop.
INFLUENCE OF OPEN TEMPTATIONS.
At is conceded that prohibition gen.
orally succeeds in banishing dram shops
from public sight, but it is claimed that
it only drives them to hidden corners.
If this were all that is gained by prohi.
bition, it would be great advantage, for
the temptations offered by an open dram
shop, given certificate of responsibility
by law, and offering those temptations to
the weak and inexperienced as they are
compelled to pass by, are much more dam
gerous than the temptations afforded by
secret dram shop, forced to hide in Sc
cret corners, which nobody encounters I'M
less he is seeking for them.
REDUCTIONS OF DRAM SHOPS.
S. But the evidence is conclusive that
prohibition not only for the most part
closes open dram shops and compels the
traffic to hide, but also that it diminishes
the number Of places in which liquor
is sold in any manner as bever-
age. Taking advantage Of the fact that
prohibition well nigh drives even the Sc
oret dram shop and drunkenness from the
rural sections, but is not BILE to prevent
secret dram selling, or any other offence,
in cities where it has opportunities to
hide, one trick Of the liquor interest is to
ignore the country and confne their COM
parsons to cities, and even in the case of
these to select particular city in which,
for exceptional reasons, the worst show
ing is made. Even when they compare
States, they select as their license exam
pie State in which local prohibition ex-
lists in large portion of the counties, as
for example West Virginia or Georgia.
Inasmuch as in most Southern States
the practice of home dist illation of whis.
key for home use prevails extensively,
thereby lesssning the number of dealers,
any fair inquiry requires that Southern
States be compared with Southern States
and Northern States with Northern and
that States, including both country and
city, in which license wholly prevails, be
compared with States in which prohibi-
ton wholly prevails. II.
The last Internal Revenue Report
shows, that in the four Northern States
of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
and Kansas, in all of which the prohibit
Org law is in force, the number of retail
liquor dealers MAINLY secret Dealers av-
eraged in 1882 one to every $40 .inhabit-
ants; that in the four Northern States of
Massachusetts,, Iowa, Indiana, and Ne