The Monitor. [volume] (Woodstown, N.J.) 1884-1892, 1886-07-23

The esteemed foHStiqfioH ticyoteS Il fair
amount of space to a review of our position
on prohibition as against high license as
we stated il last week. and cites the action
of the Gloucester County Temperance Al
lance. in contradiction of our statement
that the Prohibitiomists have never, to our
knowledge, admitted that high license
would restrict the sale of rum We don't
see that the action OF the Alliance is at all
ill point. they have simply taken the
law as they found it. They find the Ii
censing power vested in the courts, which
have a large discretion, and the efforts of
the Alliance ia Gloucester county and else
where have been directed to call upon the
courts to exercise that discretion So as to
cut off the traffic in toto rs far as possible
not to increase license fees, but to refuse to
license at all. They recognize the fact that
the couItS are disposed To license, and in
many cases they recognize the utter flu
tility of any effort in opposition while the
present system is in vogue, but in 81 far
as they can % toward full prohibition
through the courts they have gone in every
case. II has been mp hill work, for the
bar-rooms are So firmly intrcuched behind
the statute book and the bench, that it has
been in most cases a waste of ammunition.
The Alliance has simply tried to- do the
best il could under our present wretched
license law and would probably put forth
RI, .,a,. .1,rt n A.. If..N.. G.. .,.
''high, as they do now while it is low
but with stiIl less success. We have no
objection to the GonsfitaAoh coupling
with our statement, that high license will
be "a temptation to the bascr element of
the rum selling fraternity to violate the
law by selling without licenses" the
thought that such sales would be success
fully carried on, because we are not at
present discussing the question of violating
the law, but simply stating ON belief that
ii high license could he enforced, Prohibi-
ton could be enforced equally well, and
that as between the two. Prohibition is the
more creditablc position for the state to
take.
The Constitution thinks our definition OF
free rum is more ingenious thai We
intended it. We meant it exactly as il
was written. Restriction on the seller is
one thing: on the drinker quite another, and
we have failed to see, SO far, any system Of
license, high or low, that mtcrlcrcs in
plan OF spirit with a man that desires to
drink getting all he wants. They all leave
the fountain flowing and the stream run
ming, and il don't much matter to the
drinker whether he goes down this walk
or enters that VENUE 10 the supply. So
he gets there. What the prohibitions
lists propose is to cut otf the supply nj
the fountain head. 1t is a question Of
whether rum shall continue to exist,
and whether ii shall be permitted nj m by
Law To be dealt ont As Il beverage to the
mental and physical ruin Of aur fellow
men and the impoverishmcnt and degrade
ton Of their families We are sure that
in principle, il not in method, the Goastita-
ton is on the same side of the question as
the MONITOR.
The CONSTITUTION weakens whatever force
its comments upon the MoNIToRIAI views
might Otherwise have had by its unkind
closing fling at the motives Of the Pro
hibitionists. But The prohibitionists have
become used to that, but usually from
papers Of less standing and influence than
our esteemed contemporary.