Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1883-01-30

life by the same overwhelming MAJOR
ity, for no better reason than that his
prohibition scheme was q failure and
had proved q grieyous mistake In leSis-
lation.
Look at Maiue, where . prohibitory
law has been in force since 1916. Last
year the town Of Msehias, Maine. drank
SO, s62l7 worth OF liquors, or more than
81 worth to every man, woman and
child in the town; Portland drank Sls,-
500 worth, or about 50 cents worth for
each inhabitant; Bangor drank in about
the same proportion, and 50 with Lewis
tow, Auburn, Bethel, Rocklaad and
other towns
They DRINK MORE LIQUOR IN THE
TOWNS OF MAINE UNDER P~RoHIBIToRY
LAWS THAN THEY DO IN WEST VIR-
GINA UNDER LICENSE!
Every man who wants the statistics
to prove this can get them officially
certified.
But the figures do not show all the
liquor drank in Maine. Hear what
NEAL Dow says-NEAL Dow Is the
great apostle of prohibition. Speaking
of the State of Maine-his own State
he says:
Whisky in Maine is carried in small
bottles in the pockets Of the liquor-sellers,
and dealt out upon the sly; it is put into
tespots, placed upon the kitchen shelf; it
is built into the walls of houses, in tin
cans, with a small rubber pipe by which
to draw it of; it is concealed in bottles in
the bed it is concealed in bottles unde the
floor, put there through 8 trap that can
only be reached by removing the bed; 1t Is
concealed in small fat bottles in the ash
pit under the ovens Of cooking stoves; it
is hidden In wells, attached to springs fast
ened ssme inches below the surface Of the
water; it is buried in heaps; it is
concealed under the floor of the pig-sty;
it is hidden away upon the Hat roof OF the
house, access to il being had only by q
ladder through q ~scuttle; it is hidden in at
tics, under the floor, and in cellars buried
in the earth"
OF course the originator and foremost
champion of the Maine law would pre-
sent the most favorable side Of the pic
ture, and, if this is it, then the law
after a trial Of thirty-six years-iS q
confessed failure. 1t has simply substi-
tuted secret for public drinking, and as
people usually drink more when COM
PEELED to drink secretly, the probabli-
ties are that the consumption of stimu-
lants in Maine has been increased rath-
er than diminished by prohibitory leg
islatiOn.
In the face of such facts, we ask, is
prohibition a temperance measure?
Must members who oppose and de-
nounce the attempt to put a failure in
the organic law, be denounced as oppo-
nents of temperance reform2
3. But it is said that a majority ought
to rule, and that if q majority of the
members Of the Legislature are in favor
of this measure, they probably represent
the sentiments of the people and there
fore q majority of the people favor it
and should have it.
So they said in Iowa. In that State
10000 people voted that a minority OF
10000 should not drink wine or beer.
What if they did?
What if the 10000 had voted that
the l2O,O 600 should not smoke. Suppose
they had voted that the 10000 should
not drink coffee; or that they should
not drink a certain amount of beer
every day. Or, suppose, in short, that
the one hundred and fifty thousand
had voted that the one hundred and
twenty thousand should rot drink
water, or eat hard boiled ee g, or Gu
cumbers; how much attention would
the minority be expected to pay to such
a vote?
How much more attention do they
pay to a law that says they shan't
drink whisky?
If the object Of prohibition is to re-
form, of what account is it to pass such
laws. When or where does prohibit
ton prohibit?
To say that such laws must be passed
to meet the demand of a majority who
want to vote on 1t is q foolish fallacy.
Legislators are elected to voice the sen.
timents of the people, and the same re-
gard for sovereign rights that would re-
fer the question of prohibition to a di-
rect vote would apply to every subject
that comes before the Legislature. Sub
mission" is q mere begging of the ques-
ton. 1t is an unwise attempt to force
an odious measure upon = minority Of
people-for what? Professedly for the
purpose of reforming those to whom it
is odiOuS
If the advocates of such a proposition
could point to 3 single civilized COM
munity in the world where beverage
drinking has been extirpated by q pro-
hlbitory enactment, its force as an ar
gument In their favor might be admit
ted. But until they do this their cause
is one of arbitrary and mischievous vio-
lence.
We have desired simply to do our
duty to the public in regard to this i'm
pOrtant public question. We have left
no one in doubt as to where we stand.
We are in favor of temperance reform.
We will advocate with as much vigor
and earnestness q real temperance
measure as We al command.
We are in favor of any reform that
will bring about a reformation.
But we are not in favor of shutting
up the front door and opening the back
doors of the drsm-shops.
We are not in favor of stopping the
spigots and opening the sluice gates?
We GRO NOT in favor of DOstDOninv fiji