The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1885-10-08
.rRuE rENIPERANCE..

In an article in Yesterdays News |
headed 1.-THE Evils of Intemperanc,"
we find the above expression to which |
we wish TO pay our respects. Much has
been said in the past few years about |
true temperance, as if there could be |
which was not true It is a |
mere play upon words, an appeal to the
populus.
Temperance is, according to Webster, |
"Habitual moderation In regard to the
indulgence of the natural appetites and
passions; restrained or moderate indul-
gence; moderation" The word true is
unnecessary. We suppose the writer
has his in mind the idea of the true way
to bring about temperance He pro-
ceeds To compare the prohibitory law to
the fiat money law, saying that one says
that there shall be no intoxicating lIq-
our and yet is poured down the throats
of the incorporate on all sides;" while
the other says"a silver dollar shall be q
hundred cents, yet 1t is IN
fact but seventy-nlne cents"
We are unable to see the comparison.
One is try ing TO prevent that which ell
recognize as an evil, while the other
would be declaring that to be right
which every one knows is not right or
true and cannot be made so by a mere
fat But let US look at the statement,
"One says there shall be no intoxicating
liquor" We beg leave to deny that the
prohibltory law has such a thought in
1t. 1t merely says 1t shall not be legally
sold or made in Kansas tor beverage;
that is all.
The enemies of the law have been
lodging the issue The Law snys that
the business Of making intoxicating
liquors for sale as a beverage, or the SELL
ing of the same, shall be prohibited in
Kansas. The question resolves itself
into what Is the best means to get rid of
the traffic in Intoxicating liquors Is it
through prohibition or through nigh
license? 1t is plain to every one that
We Can not get rid of the business by
permitting three or four men
to sell and refusing others. This Is sim
ply making monopoly Of the business.
Il Is giving to few men the privilege
of selling liquor at q high price and
making those who drink pay the bill.
This would be TO make four or five
places of public resort. instead Of dozen
or fifteen. Yes. 1t would enrich q few at
the expense ofthe many. If we must
have liseuse it seems to Us that low
license would bring just as much money
into the treasury ana would give more
people the privilege of getting living
out OF il, and would be giving the
drinker more whisky for his money.
THIS is our view of The license question.
OF course We are opposed To the traffic
10 any way, so we should oppose eltheE
high or low II ;eSss.
Admitting IheL that high license wall
not do away with the traffic, the only
question then is. will prohibition? OuI
answer is, not entirely. Every honesl
man will admit this much. II viii
no more do away with tn,
business than laws prohibitins
stealing and house-breaking viii d,
away with that business. All will cd
mIt that there is not as much stealln,
and robbing as there would be wer
there no laws against the business.
Does the prohibitorY law restrain
while educstlOn is progressing, is tn
question. We believe It does Just q
well say it is no use . make law
: against stealing until we educate III
people not to steal. We would need n
laws on the subject. Laws are mad
: for the lAwless-" A school teache
r makes certain laws. then educates b
pupils up to keeping them. All adm
, that the traffic IN intoxicating LIQUORS
Is wrong, Let Us then keep our Law
Z agsinst 1t and work 10 enforce the sam
Il and educate the rising generation
keep the laws. even If the old tope
will not. II is much easier 20 educa
n concerning q law that Is, than TO educa
Il concerning one that might be, pssse
y We believe thar the prohibItory ID
= throws the responsibility upon the De
y pie" etc Therefore, It Is the very Ii
n We need. Let as unite in enforcing
ae R. l. LOTT.
4