Turner County herald. (Hurley, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-19??, 1883-08-23
Turner County Herald.
Published Every Thursday.
HURLEY, DAKOTA, AUG g, 1883.
ns..-1esaea, rrohlD,.,on.
ny rRoFEssaa eoppARp.

DY PROFESSOR GODDARD.
The writer is in favor, if the sale of
impure, adulterated liqnors is contin-
ued, of a law requiring druggists and
saloon men to Label bottles and barrels,
kegs and glasses containing it, as such,
same as the Chicago authorities require
explosive kerosene to be so labeled and
the same as druggists are required to
label poisons when selling them. l
think this would be grand step toward
the annihilation of poisoned liquors, us
abeverage, an humiliation which ought
to be complete, for the writer fails to
see wherein they do more good than
other poisons, the fact being, as the In
diana farmer said in reply to Senator
Voorhees,, that their principal object is
"to raise hell" By the way, I must
tell that anecdote. Voorhees, was ask
ing the farmer what people would do if
| the law forbade distillers and brewers
to manufacture grains into liquors of
different kinds. "IIow would the farm
ers dispose of all their surplus grain
and corn2" asked voorhees,. "Raise
more beef and less hell" said the far
mer.
Of course this Law either regulating
! or prohibiting the sale of adulterated
liquors except as poisons would be
striking hard blow at the seat Of
drlmkard's emotions, the stomach; and
a still harder blow at the center of the
| saloon mans affections-the pocket
book; yet think any man whose opin-
ion is worth consulting at all would
| wish to place these adulterated stuffs
beyond the reach of men who have lost
or nearly lost self-control, and by the
plain label give them to deliberately
understand that they were knowingly
taking virulent poisons. Whether alco-
hol itself is a poison, Is an open ques-
tion; the authorities disagree.
Many men are theoretically in favor
of prohibition who doubt the utility of
law to bring about complete temper
ance; yet the law Ihave suggested, it
seems to me, ought to commend itself
in that it takes away no right of man
to poison himself if he wished, but sim
| ply imposes duty upon statesmen to
notify by correct label, the man who
buys, just what he is getting.
The existence of law Is largely justi-
fled by the possibility of its enforce
ment. Will any one say that the law
have suggested cannot be enforced? It
is enforced in the cuse of drug poisons,
why notw;th adnlterated liquors? You
say it would require national and state
inspectors versed in the chemistry of
liquors. Very well, let us have them
at any cost. If it has come to such a
pass that we must eat adulterated
foods, drink poisoned teas, and liquors
when taken in moderation, then say
| let's inaugurate system of prohibition
of such, and let it be "war to the knife
and knife to the hilt." But before we
begin our warfare, let us thoroughly
understand what it is we wish to pro-
hibit. Let us see whether we wish to
prohibit pure, healthful beverages, or
simply adulterated, poisoned slops.
| In England, prohibitory liquor laws
are unknown, but the spread of intelli-
gence has exerted a very great influ-
ence on the sale of liquors, as the tax
lists show.
| The wide extended agitation in this
country, south as well as north, shows
that the people are thinking; that a
widespread contempt for drunkenness
exists; that, whatever may be the legal
outcome, the moral aspect Of the tenn
perance question is gaining ground.
Again, when we take into considera-
tion that we pay, per capita, in this
country only S1.10 annually for reli-
gion, 1922 for education, and S17 for
miserable, poisoned liquors, is it not
about time that such matters were
looked into2
| viii prohibition accomplish COM
plete removal of intemperance? Not
as now defined and urged. Maine has
tried the experimentlong and thorough
| ly; and while it has accomplished good
| it is far from complete success. Ac-
cording to the last census Maine has
| yet 99l retail liquor dealers. You re-
ply that they are the licensed, state
liquor agents. Yes; and if you can
prove to me that they have for sale only
pure liquors; that there are not twenty
one wholesale liquor dealers there who
manufacture and adulterate their
liquors; that there are no bottles of
this stuff hid away in ash pits, under
bakeries, and cooking stoves, down
wells of water, in cock lofts, beneath
floors of pig-pens, under skirts of shame
less women, and numerous other secret
places-if you can prove all this-then
| will give it all up and say that prohi-
bition (spelled with a big p is COM
plete and thorough success in Maine.
What has prohibition accomplished
in Mainep 1t has made it a public dis
grace to sell liquor-unless yotl have a
state license. Would it not be little
more consistent, reasonable and moral,
to prohibit the sale of adulterated
liquors in Maine. unless they are labeled
and sold rs such? Will prohibition
never see the consequence of it's logic:
Pure liquors suppressed; "bitters " and
poisonous decoctions are freely sold.
But you reply perhaps, that "there can
be no impure liquors in Maine, because
she has no distilleries, no refineries, no
breweries." Certainly, but did you
never stop to think that nearly all the
liquor of Maine is imported and hence
very liable to be adulterated, for 1t is a
well known fact that foreign wines and
liquors nearly all get adulterated by the
time they reach the consumers mouth,
in this country? The same is true of
the liquors from the states.
II 1lnf Iaf ,,u 1ool, of onnfbar rocition of