Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-09-10

Besides Il Is not true that this IL not
political question. The liquor traffic
has always been in politics, and the
saloons are one Of the principal E1edi-
ums through which monopolies and
rings are ruling and running the
country. No greater falsehoOd has
ever been propagated by party
demagogues than the assertion that
the state has no right TO protect the
people against the traffic. The liquor
Traffic has always been dealt with and
regulated by law, and Is to-day legal
lied and sanctioned by II. And little
as you may have thought about II, my
friends, prohibition has always existed
in the form of license laws, which pro-
hlbit the people from selling liquor UNI
der heavy penalties, and only confer
the exclusive privilege TO the saloon-
keeper to deal out liquid damnaiion TO
his neiRhbor, upon his paying the state
certain blood-money falsely called rev.
enue The li1uor traffic Is a partner
ship between the state and lot of
criminals i'm which the former, for a
small amount of blood-mouey, author
lies the latter to engagein the business
OF murder and other crimes, which in
the end cost the people at least ten
times as much In the form OF taxes as
the so-called revenue amounts To.
BIT ifthe state can prohibit 49O out
OF every 500 of the people from selling
liquor why not prohibit the remaining
one? In other words, prohibit the
traffic altogether and protect the pe0-
pie against this terrible curse. This is
exactly what the supreme court of the
United States more than quarter of q
century ago decided that state can
do. In the celebrated license cases
carried by Daniel Webster before that
august tribune and reported Howard
5Oi, Justice Catr on uses this language:
VI admit as objectionable, that II
the state has the power of restraint by
license TO any extent, she has the dis
cretionary power to judge of its limit,
and may go TO the length of prohibit
ing sale altot ether,p
This settles the whole question.
Chief Justice fancy also uses the
following language: ~ see nothing in
the constitution OF the United States
to prevent a state from regulating and
restraining the traffic or from prohibit
ing IL altogether II it sees proper
This power, as already stated, has
been exercised in Maine. Iowa, Kansas
and other states, and will finally be
the fundamental proposition that self
preservation is the first law of nature,
and society must protect itself.
But the liquor sellers and their de-
tenders, when forced to the wall on
the legal position, fall back on the
argument that prohibition does not
prohibit Well, if IL does not, what
are you complaining about? If it does
not prohibit you can go on with your
hellish business, and we, the people,
Will take the chances on prohibition.
But let us see whether 1t prohibits
Maine, where the law has been In force
over third of "A century, ought to he
fair test. All the officials of that
state testify that this law, like all other
laws, Is violated more or less, but is as
well enforced as any other ppnal law
Ina the state. | will not, however ask
you 10 take the testimony of the Maine
officials, but will give you the testi
mony of the liquur agents OF the United
States ~ il Is found In the internal
revenue reports. These show that in
1874 the United States derived from
Maine in liquor revenue about $4,000,
while In Maryland, "A state of about
the same population, then under the
| license system, the United States de.
rived 81 ,2Si 900 in liquor revenue.
! This clearly shows, and that from the
! testimony of the enemies of prohibit
ton that it does prohibit; and that in
Maine, although the law allows alco-
holic liquors sold for medical and me-
chanical purposes, yet II very small
amount is really sold, rs the revenue
returns indisputably prove.
The truth IL that prohibition has
In
! where the officers whose duty it Is to
| enforce the law have sold out TO the
liquOr-sellers, perjured themselves,
and declined to execute the law. And
because the Republicans and Demo-
Gratis have permitted the liquor sellers
| to use their parties rs machines to put
periured scoundrels into Office to
thwart the will of the people, trample
ON public morals and destroy the lives
and property of the people, the Prohi-
bitionists have been forced TO organize a
political party of their own, to protect
the homes and families of the people
again st the flood of crime which flows
out from the saloon into every avenue
of society. The liquor sellers and their
tools, the professional politicians, are
loud in their complaints against the
Temperance fanatics" as they call us,
for organizing new political party,
They say they are not organizing any
party, and why should we? l reply
that there IL no necessity of the liquor
sellers organizing new party when
they already have two parties which
do their bidding implicitly. | refer
TO the Democratic and Republican par
ties, both OF which are the tools of the
liquor traffic. The Democratic party
has openly allied itself with the liquor
crime rs stepping stone to federal Of
fees. II has in its platform declared
against prohibition, under the false
name of sumptuary laws, and Mr.
Cleveland, their candidate for the
presidency, in his letter of acceptance,
in buugling way does the same. The
following Is his language, intended as
strike at the moral, temperance
and order loving elements OF society,
and u bid for the saloon influence:
Ina free country thu ourlau ment or.the ab
solute right of the individual should only bC
such as Is essential to he peace and good or
der OF the community, the limit between the
proper subjects OF governmental control and
those which can be mora hitting
LBkr 70 rliE MORAL SENSE,
and seltlmposed restraint OF the ciu Gems
should be clrefdlly kept Ia view. Thus laws
unnecessarily interfering with the Ia nits aud
customs of any Of our people which are not
Offensive TO 'he oral sentiment OF ciyillHa
"a Ia NaNn NM