The Portland daily press., 1884-04-04
The Prohibitory Amendment

The legislature of the State has submitted
to the voters for their adoption or rejection
unconstitutional amendment prohibiting the
manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors
In this State forever. Opposition to this
amendment is fer the most part based on
but two grounds. One of these grounds
Is that such an amendment would in no
event advance the cause of prohibition any
better Than statute on the subject, and
might give rise tc troublesome legal ques-
tions. This is the position Of Judge Apple
ton. The other ground is disbelief in the
principle of prohibition, and desire to sub
stitute for the present law license law.
This 10 the ground of the Bangor Commer-
cisPs opposition, aud if the Democratic cor
vention declares against the amendment, as
the Commercial is urging it to do, this will be
the real, if not the avowed, ground ofiis op-
position. Every voter in the State who IA
vors license opposes the prohibitory amend
ment. But there are voters, doubtless, who
are not in favor of license law who do not
look with favor on the prohibitory amend
ment.
The equestion, however, is presented in such
way that the voters who belong in this last
category cannot vote against the amend
ment without having their motives misin-
terpreted. Judge Appleton declares against
the prohibitory amendment. Immediately
the Bangor Commercial infers that he is in
favor Of license law and, if he had not ex-
planned the grounds of his opposition the
Commercials inference would have been
commonly regarded as correct. The voter
at the polls has no opportunity to make any
such explanation. If the people next Sep
tember defeat the prohibitory amendment
undoubtedly it will be represented by all
enemies Of prohibition that the majority of
the voters Of Maine are opposed to prohibit
ton.
The advocates of license are well aware
Of this, and it makes little difference to
them on what grounds men vote against the
amendment provided enough vote against it
to defeat it. Unless the amendment is defeat
ed the advocates of license have no chance
whatever to carry their point. But if they
win victory in this contest they will be en-
couraged to carry their fight against prohi-
billion into the legislature where they will
attack the prohibitory statute. Now in ev-
cry legislature there are more or less men,
bers who are prohibitionists, not from per-
sonal conviction, but because they think
that public sentiment is in favor of pro-
hibition, aud they do not care to
jeopardize their political future by at
tempting to resist the popular current.
4 defeat of the constitutional amendment
by popular vote will furnish the license law
advocate powerful lever with which to work
upon such men, and there can be little doubt
shat in many cases the work would prove
effective. To defeat the amendment then
is to endanger the prohibitory law.
1t will be well therefore for the believers
In prohibition who, with Judge Appleton,
are convinced that the proposed constitu-
tional amendment is not free from objec-
tions, to consider whether it will not
be wiser to vote for this measure which, if
it does no good, is not likely to do any
harm, than by voting against il to strength
On the men who are seeking to overthrow a
law which has been on the statute book for
over suarter of a century and has ban
ished the grog shops from our country towns
and greatly diminished their number in the
cities, and the alternative being a license
law which was once tried in this State and
ingloriously failed.
We have no expectation, and in our judg-
ment there is no good reason for anybody to
expect, that the proposed constitutional
amendment per Sc will contribute anything
to the enforcement Of prohibition. The diff
ficulty In regard to the enforcement of pro-
hibitory legislation now is not want of law
but want of disposition on the part of the
people. The law is adequate already, and
has been adequate for long time, wherey-
er the people who believe in it are infuen-
tial enough and resolute enough to take ad-
vantage of it. A license law, with local op-
ton, is sufficient to enable any community to
prohibit liquor selling, and it is doubtful
whether the prohibitory law is strictly en-
forced in any place in this State which
would not prohibit liquor selling under To-
cal option license law. But the friends OF
prohibition have been put in this dilemma,
that they must support the prohibitory
amendment or be represented as opposed to
prohibition. And under these circumstan-
ces they will generally support 1t, how
ever little positive advantage they may sx-