The Monitor. [volume] (Woodstown, N.J.) 1884-1892, 1884-05-09

Neb., and the father of the high license idea,
testifes: "There has been no improvement
in our saloons" " Gambling and prostitu-
ton go hand in hand'' High license has
done nothing toward waking up temperance
sentiment. Saloon keepers violate the
law just as they always have John B.
Finch, prominent in the advocacy of the law
and an ardent temperance man, testifes: 60
was friend of the law at its birth. I now
know l was terribly mistaken in my theo-
ries." Many of the delusions urged in de-
Tense of hige license have been exploded by
the trial of the law"
Contrast now these statements and figures
with those recently published as to the sue
cess of prohibition in Kansas. They were
gathered by James A. Troutman, of Topeka
He wrote to every county attorney and super
intendent and police judge in the state. Re-
ports were received from sixty -six out of
eighty-one counties. And these reports, be
it remembered were made by state officers,
not by temperance partisans. In these sixty
six counties the number of saloons has been
reduced since May LIST, 1881, when the pro-
hibitory law took effect, from 70S to 313 of
which latter number more than half are in
Leavenworth. During this time the popula-
ton has increased twelve per cent In forty
one counties there is not one saloon. The
fines have amounted to $685. 900, and eighty
one saloon-keepers have been imprisoned,
their Imprisonment aggregating eleven years,
five months and nineteen days. In ifty-one
counties the reports all agree that prohibition
sentiment is growing stronger. In seven
counties it is reported as growing weaker,
and in eight as at a stand-still. Look on
these two pictures and judge ye does high
license restrict? Does not prohibition pro-
hibit?
1t is said high license will at least shut up
the unlicensed saloons, for those who have
paid SO heavily for their license will prose-
cute in self-defense This is the absurdest of
fallacies. Here are three good reasons why
First, the house of the liquor dealer will not
divide against itself. Secondly the higher
liquor dealers are mostly violaters of the law
themselves. Many of them sell to drunkards;
sell to minors; sell on Sundays. They live
in glass houses, and they will not throw
stones. Thirdly, they need these low sa-
looms to take their refuse. They want these
out of the way when they are done with
keepers will not turn prohibitionists as against
their own clan.
5. The fifth and final point is that license,
whether high or low, Is aorong IN principle.
This objection to the system is radical and
fundamental. 1t goes to the root of the
whole matter. If once persuaded that it is
well taken it ends all advocacy or connivance
on the part of him of good conscience.
The ground upon which the objection is
based is this:
The actual saloon is an iniquity. The evils
directly traceable to it, and that inevitably
in greater or less degree flow out of it, when
ever and wherever opened, are absolutely ap-
palling. These evils affect public order, pub
lie health, public decency: they increase
taxes imperil property, endanger life. They
are by confession the prolific source of crime,
poverty, orphanage, disease, death. They
are open, public, notorious, civic, and social.
There is no such assault on health, on life,
on property, on liberty, on society, on the
home, as that which comes from the liquor
traffic There is not one solitary privilege
that can be afforded the dramseller consistent
aciM tile public good. The saloon exists as a
moral abomination.
Now the government, in issuing its license,
virtually says, and without any possibility of
question as to its meaning PAY me $500
and for one year you may proceed with that
moral abomination You may open saloon
and deal out strong drink, notwithstanding
the fact that the saloon in any community is
the invariable precursor and cause of social
blight and curse" The government thus
lends its high sanction to the traffic gives it
legal status, throws about it its sacred shield,
and stamps it with Legitimacy as real as if
it were the most innocent and benefcent bus
mess of life.
For the government to do that thing,
whether for So or $500, or $4,000, is
moral aor0ng. Governments, like individu-
ais, must forevermore do right Permits to
pursue the liquor traffic are permits to make
inroads on almost every interest of life. Ii
cense to sell intoxicating drink carries with it
not only liquor-selling, but the known and
inevitable consequences of liquor-selling.
This law of responsibility is true of the indi-
vidual. 1t is just as true of the state.
But it is denied by some good men that Ii
cense carries this fearful implication. 1t is
held by them that license is simply in the ma
ture of tax, and is, so far as it goes restric-
tive and prohibitory, giving no sanction and
implying no approval.
Consult any legal authority, and see how
this befogs definition and challenges common
sense Bouvier defines license: "a right
given by some competent authority to do an
act, which without such authority would be
illegal" He defines tax: "a contribution
imposed by government on individuals for the
service of the state" Now mark the unmis-
taxable distinctions here made. License is
GO a right given; tax is 81 contribution i'm
posed" License implies privilege. Tax
implies an obligation. License is permits
sion. Tax is a command. License gives le-
gal status. Tax gives nothing, but requires.
License is for regulation. Tax is for revenue.