The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-12-05
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
Liquor LegislatIon.

Liquor Legislation.
70 the Editor of the Indianauclis Journsa:
The Rev. R. Wallace, of Toronto, says:
places where Intoxicating liquor was sold,
involving a direct outlay and waste of not
less than 500 000, 0oO and an indirect loss to
the country by crime, pauperism, etc, of
100000 600 more; and this results in the de-
struction OF 100000 lives yearly"
Here are three arguments for prohibiting
the traffic in strong drinks;
First-The cost of $500, 600, 600 for which
there IS no return of good
SeCOnd-A return in pauperiSm and crime
which nets a loss of 800, 600 600
Thlrd-The loss of 100, 600 citizens, every
one as valuable to the country and as fully
entitled to the protection of life, liberty and
property as any one of the negroes murdered
in Virginia in the recent election.
Let us answer that the Journal and its
readers agree that these arguments call for
suppression of this traffic, though less is said
against this murder of 100 600 people and the
destruction OF s., 400 000, 600 of money than
OF the murder OF twenty negroes and posi-
bly, $1,000 of property belonging 10 the
blacks. The inconsistency of the cutlery oc-
casioued by the different losses is explained
by Horace in the famous line, Monies par
turant." THE mountains are in labor"
They groan and grunt with pain, and for
what? And a little mouse is born" l say
not this in condemnation of all written
against the shotgun policy or keeping men
from voting either by threat or bullet but
that too much is made of one sore evil and lit
tie heed is paid to one a thousand-fold greater.
The outcries of the party are not according
to the evils OF the land.
But, it is said: "Intemperance, or the sup
preston of it, rather, is not a party ques-
ton" Why should it not be q party ques-
ton? 1t is a national evil-the nations ca
lamity. The Republican party claims to
exist for the nations benefit. It is its doc
tor for all ills that can be cured by legslat-
i've medicine. Why not prescribe for this
disorder?
The answer is: 1t is q question for the
people, Irrespective of party. All good citi-
zens should work for its determination. But
this answer is not satisfactory. No national
good was ever accomplished without organ
ization-except through party. The people
know this. The answer, then, do not ask
this party or that party to advocate temper
ance, but advocate it as individuals; let each
man act independently, without a leader a
newspaper, platform, on even plank" is
advice which cannot be accepted
We have been told again that prohibition
is failure, and that the present license law
is good enough, which means license is q
success as an anti-liQuor law.
But we believe neither of these state
ments License has been tested for twenty
and more years, and its rule costs over $780,
200 cash and as much more in misery
and pauperism. One billion four hundred
million dollars and hundred thousand
lives sacrificed every year is not the product
OF q healthy successful law. So we do not
believe license as an anti-lquor law is a sue
cess. Neither do we believe prohibition is a
failure.
The same Toronto writer, Rev. R. Wallace, of
Toronto, says: I'm the State OF Maine before
prohibition there one drunkard for every
fifty-tivel OF population,i and 100000 gallons
liquor bill amounted to $10,O00.OoO. Since pro-
hiUitlOn there is not dIstillery or brewery i'll
the State, the recent sale of liquor amounting to
the mere fraction of the former quantity sold;
whereas the death rate has been reduced to one
in 300 of her population"
Now this does not say that there is no
liquor sold or drunk,in Maine, but that much
less is sold and drunk. Prohibition is more
repressive than license. 1t is more as law is
compared to no law
This is the benefit expected from prohibit
tion-less drunkenness and crime, and not a
total suppression at once of this vice.
The people want some party to espouse the
cause of temperance. They will unite on
local option. Statute prohibition or consti-
tutional prohibtory amendment. They want
prohibition in some form, and do not want
the sale of liquor permits. They think-we
think-it is right to say to the saoonist
Thou shdt not put the bottle to thy
neighbours lips" We do not want
that cry of weakness so long
heard, 1--WE cannot enforce our laws" There
is no backbone to liquor legislation" The
people are clamorng for some party to call
this an evil and condemn it. If no party
will espouse their cause they must form one.
Right, conscience, and the consideration of
public and personal welfare with united
voice call upon them to organize, and to use
methods and means in SURPRISING the great
est of modern evils, and no longer mobilize,
without plan of operation or agreement as to
leadership, fight an enemy alasl protected
and fostered, not fettered, by the law of our
State ard our country.
MUNCIE, Ind. GEORGE A. LITTLE,