Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-12-19
Does Prohibition Prohibit?

1t is remarkable how widely the friends
and enemies of prohibition differ on the
question whether prob ton prohibits.
1t would seem as il there ought to be no
difficulty in getting at the truth. Relia-
BILE information can be obtained in about
all the prohi bitiou States and counties re-
speeding all matters affected by prohibit
ton, and statistics showing the condition
of affairs before and after the adoption of
prohibition law ought to tell the story
quite satisfactorily. But somehow or
other they DO not. The Prohi bitionists
furnish facts and figures which show that
prohibition has accomplished wonders,
and the anti-Prohibitionists seem to be
able to prove quite conclusively that pro-
hioition Is an evil that ought to be got rid
of at the earliest possible moment.
In Name, for instance, the Pr ohibition-
lists insist that marvellous amount Of
good has been accomplished, and that the
State is now almost wholly free from
drunkenness, and crimes that can
be directly traced to the use
OF intoxicating LIQUORS. On the
other hand, some OF the abest
temperance advocates who are hostile to
prohibition, declare that there Is more
drinking in that State now than there was
before the adoption Of the prohibition law.
the same contradictory testimony re-
speeding the effect OF prohibition in Kan
sas is presented.
OF course both the Prohibitionists and
and the anti-Prohibitionists cannot be
rfn &. L
or bad effect, and 1t is probable that the
difficulty in getting at the truth is due
to disposition on the part of some TO hide
it and a failure on the part of others to
give proper weight to the fact that in
m any localities the law is not enforced.
I he Prohibitionists draw their facts from
the localities where the law is enforced,
and the anti-Prohibitionists from those
where it is not enforced.
With the view OF settling the question
OF the result of prohibition in Kansas, a
Chicago paper, few days ago, addressed
letters of inquiry to the Probate judges of
about all the counties in that State.
These officers are supposed to be well
posted about the results of the prohibition
law, because they administer 1t. An
swers have thus far been received from
about fifty counties, and the great ma
jority of them contain strong testimony
in support OF prohibition. In five of the
fifty counties the law is pronounced an
unqualified failure, and in about five
others it is admitted that il is not en-
forced, although opinions are
expressed rather favorable to it.
In all the others the answers show a de-
crease in the use of whisky ranging from
80 to Is per cent, aud a decrease in
crimes growing OUT Of the use of whisky
of from 30 to 80 per cent.
This is certainly very remarkable
showing Efn favor of prohibition. 1t is
probable that II the inquiry had taken
wider range 1t would have been shown
that the people have more of the COM
forts of life, are far more contented, and
that their homes and farms present
much more thrifty appearance now than
when whisky was free.
1t is not necessary for Georgians to look
to Maine or Kansas for facts to prove
the good effects of prohibition, at least in
rural districts. There is not q county
in this State which has adopted prohibl-
ton and in which the law Is enforced that
could be induced to vote for it's repeal.
Peace, order, thrift and prosperity have
taken the place Of drunkenness, disorder,
crimes Of violence and poverty, Whether
prohibition can be made effective in large
towns Is yet an unsolved problem.