The Dillon tribune., 1885-02-21
Ghe Ainnn Gribnt,t.


This ODleCtlOn 10 the system is RADICAL
and fundamental. 1t goes to the root Of
the whole matter. If once persuaded that
j, is we'll taken, it ends all advocacy or con.
,ivance on the part OF him of good con.
science.
The ground upon which the objection is
BASED is this: The actual saloon is an in
EQUITY. The evils directly traceable to it
and that inevitably, in greater or less de-
.ress, flow out Of it, whenever and where
ever opened, are absolutely appalling.
These evils affect public order, public de-
cency, public health. They increase taxes,
;mperil property, endanger life. They are
by confession the prolific source Of crime,
poverty, orphanage, disease, death. They
ave open, public, notorious, civic and So
cal. There is no such assault on life, on
health, 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 DRAM
seller consistent with the public good. The
saloon exists as moral abo,nination. Now
the Government, in issuing its license, vir.
sualiy says, and without any possibility Of
question as to its meaning: "Pay me $500
and for one year you may proceed with
that abo'ninatio,.. 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 and moral blight and curse" The
Government thus lends it's high sanction
10 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 beneicent business of
iie.
For the Government to do that thing,
whether for SIS, $500 or $4,000, is moral
wrong. Governments, like individuals,
must forever do right. Permits to pursue
the liquor traffic are permits to make in
roads on almost every interest Of life. Ii
csnse to sell intoxicating drink carries with
it not only liquor selling, but the known
and inevitable consequence of liquor sell
10Y. This law Of responsibility is true Of
the individual. 1t is just as true Of the
State
But il is denied by some good men that
license carries this fearful implication. 1t
is held BY them that license is simply in
the nature Of tax, and is, SO far as It goes,
restrictive and prohibitory, giving no sane
ton and implying no approval
Consult some legal authority, and see
how this befogs definition and challenges
common sense Bowler defines license:
"A right given by some competent author
ity to do an act, which without such au-
,hority would be illegal" He defines lax:
"A contribution imposed by the Govern.
ment on individuals for the service Of the
State" Now mark the unmistakable diff
ference here made. License is "a right
given" Tax is "a contribution imposed"
License implies a privilege. Tax implies
an obligation. License is permission.
FAX is command. License gives legal
status. Tax gives nothing, but requires.
License is for regulation. Tax is for reve-
nue.. The very essence of license is to
permit to do The license fee is simply
an incident of regulation, and does not at
feet the nature of license at all. Whether
the fee be $500, or SIS, or not dollar, or
not cent, the act is the same, viz: Gov
ornamental permission and sanction to do a
certain thing. No bubble of words can
change this simple automatic truth. Tying
Esau'> hair to Jacobs hancs and neck does
not change Jacobs voice. The fundamen-
tal feature Of license abides, whether with
high fee, or low fee, or no fee.
If license carries no sanction, but is only
prohibitive, then why not license prostita-
tom NO." say the good men who are
confounding things that differ; "no; that is
sin FER Sc. But what difference does it
make whether prostitution is sin PER SC,
or a sin per circumstance, if the licensing
"i it is simply in the nature OF tax, and
merel Y restrictive? If the position OF
these men is correct, then the licensing OF
prostitution carries no sanction, and their
running to shelter under sin FER seis blank
cowardce and logical suicide. II their po-
>ition is not correct, then licensing the
drink shop is formal official investment OF
the drink shop with full right to open its
doors and proceed with its work Of ruin.
One horn of the dilemma or the other,
gentlemen. There is no alternative save
to wash hands clean and forever OF the
whole business Of license.
Listen now to some Of the misleading
analogies by which good men seek g prop
their judgment in this case. IT nave