St. Landry democrat., 1885-01-17
The Prohibition question.


The Prohibition Question.
Not long since an esteemed cores
pondent took issue with us on an artl-
Gle that appeared in the Times on the
subject of prohibition.
We are not willing to be placed IN the
disagreeable category OF advocating, OF
even extenuating, in any manner, shape
or form. the fearful vice OF drunken
ness-regarding it as more terrible than
| war pestilence or famine, which only
occnr at intervals, while drunkenness IS
nnceasing in it's fearful effects; Sleep
less as interest and certain IN Its hnai
results as death. !,
Notwithstanding this, we apprehend
thut legal prohibition cannot pTohloHIlt' Hl
and that moral suasion ls the only EN-
4 cacious remedy, if indeed, there be any
certain remedy. That the latter does a
world of good, there can be no ques-
ton. We see its beneficial effects IN
| Shreveport, and bid God speed to the
noble men and women VINO are deVoG-
mo their efforts to 80 desirable an end.
Iu regard to prohibition, we recently
/ saw in the New York Star review OF
the stringent liquor laws in Canada,
wherein is pointed out the, to us, well
established fact that prohibition does
not prohibit, that Forbes McEnZle, IN
\ the OldeD time, and Sir Wilfred Law
sOn. IN the present, have only succeed
ed in Great Britain in suggesting sub
1 ferfnpes for evasion of statute law ;
i that the Maine liquor law is 8 mOckery
Las far as prevention of liquor traffic If
concerned, and an intensiicatiOn OF the
evils attending it by substituting vii.
famous compounds for pure liquids
and that zeal in the cause of sObrlety By
reDressiye laws in Canada has beer
marked by an increase of liquor con
sumption the introduction of drinking
habits to the family cirle a defiance o.
police supervision, and the ultimate re
} duction of the law to dead letter: ant
a recent dispatch in the Cincinnati En-
ouirer from Bangor, Me-, giving detail
Of the -prOhibitory operations and re
suits in that State, goesttOe eorro borat
!. the views expressed by the Star. Th
> community there is represented as on
, Of contradiction. Priding themselve
on their religious principles, the mas
Q of the people are remarkable for reck
Q less profanity morality in maxim
! illustrated by misdeeds in practice
and the liquor law of the State, whlc
: all over the world is accepted 40 synOn
t vmous for rigid observance, is habitu
a allv defied. The law is described a
strict enough. ConfscatiOns, fines, i'm
nrisonments and all the other penaltie
Q known to the code for any crime les
g than murder attend the sale OF liquor
but the writer in the Enquirer tells I
how, Notwithstanding this vigOr an
! riRor of pretense, the prOcuration {
If strong drink is made easy. In drn
:. stores there has never been much diff
Guilty in the compound of an agreeabl
Q prescription. Patent medicines an
b well pufSed bitteTs, whose bases for th
q most part are the most deleterl0ue pr'
: paratiOns of alcohol, had become fave
9 rite remedies for some distressing st'
! machic disease, simply the euphemlsl
b for q craving for strong drinks. III
a now no such Rubterfuges are needo
According to the statement Of the VT
: ter in our western c0tempOFarys tL
y significant wink to the druggist rOuu
the corner is rendered unnecessary
the order of the beieweled hotel clel
- to the bell-bOy: John, show the gel
le tIeman to the elevator reading room
I. The word elevator is happily chosen
showing the results of close applicable
in that department.
s. There seems to be no escaping fro
9, the subject of the drink problem.
ia fastens upon US as the Old Man of Il
- Sea did upon the shoulders of Sinba
ls or as the Ancient Mariner did upon Il
le wedding guest, and has 0 much mo
g. friRhtfnl tale Go tell. Concurrent
IN with the exposures of the Canada al
Maine mockeries there come statemen
70 from the other side of the Atlant
I'd which we would fain hope could
re successfully refuted by statistics fro
10 our temperance friends. One of &
- assumptions of the latter in support
III prohibition is that the demand for stiE
le nlants would diminish in proportion
le the decrease of drinking houses b
we learn from an extract published
an exchange, from the Alliance Ne
re Of London, that facts are set forth
distressing refutation OF this theory.
= is stated that 1000 fewer licenses We
ne granted during the year ending at t
n. period OF returns than in the precedl
81 year, but that the consumption of be
= showed an increase of over 60O,(
u barrels. A larger quantity of dri
~ was consumed in q smaller number
t. Ihouses-a result Ia direct antagoniI
of to the prohibition theory -Shrevep'
Times.
~ mn a..~oaa;ov, - xpnr,ld annnap