Southern standard. (McMinnville, Tenn.) 1879-current, 1886-10-16
WILL PROHIBITION PROHIBIT {?

WILL FhUHlbIIlON PkOHlBlT?
Rather paradoxical question this,
as, unless it Gid prohibit, it would
not be prohibition. But to get the
question into more practical form,
will the proposed amendment to the |
constitution prohibit? There are al
ways two sides to question, and this
one is by no means an exception to
the rule.
The proposed amendment to the
constitution reads as follows:
"Sec. Is. No person shall manufac-
ture for sale or sell, or keep for sale
as beverage any neutrality-suspicious.
whatever, including wine, ale and
beer. The general assembly shall by
law prescribe regulations for the en-
forcement of the prohibition herein
contained, and shall thereby provide
suitable penalties for the violation of
the provisions hereof"
Let us admit for the sake of argu-
ment that this amendment will carry
if submitted to the people, which we
believe it will do. The first effect
will be the loss to the State, counties
and corporations, of several hunnred
thousand dollars revenue now receiv-
ed for licenses. The State, counties
and corporations could well afford to
lose this to secure prohibition, for the
benefits and blessings that would re-
suit to the people of the State through
operative prohibition would more
than overbalance the license fees on
the liquor traffic, but will the amend
ment prohibit? Will 1t not result in
the opening of hundreds of "drug
stores" throughout the State which
will be nothing short of whisky sa-
looms in disguise. The amendment
only provides for the prohibition of
the manufacture and sale of alcoholic
liquors as beverage. 1t is question
able if the social glass leads any more
men to drunkenness than the use of
liquors as ''nedicine.,. 1t seems to
us that this amendment leaves too
big loop hole for evading the pur-
pose aimed at, while it robs the State
of the only possible benefit that can
flow from whisky, the large revenue
in license fees. Who is to determine
when liquor ceases to be medicine
and becomes beverage, or 0icc yerSo?
, The amendment does not prohibit
; the manufacture and sale of liquors
in the State for medicinal purposes.
Brandy has been purchased by indi-
, viduals from Warren county distilIers
J in as large quantities as barrel strict
ly for medicinal purposes. If every
f head of a family in the State is to be
: allowed a barrel for medicinal pur-
, poses, wouldn't it be better to pro-
= hit its manufacture and sale as a
} 'tmedicine?"
We are for prohibition, if prohibi-
| ton can be made to prohibit, but we
doubt if the proposed amendment
= will prohibit to any practical extent.
} After all wouldn't high license be a
: better remedy for the evil than pro-
= hibition? Make the license so high
l that it would amount to practicable
: prohibition. If whisky was worth a
S hundred dollars gallon the poorest
. man in the State could buy all he
g needs for medicinal purposes, and be
: no poorer, for he does not need one
. solitary drop.
f, If every drop of whisky and its
: kindred beverages could be swept
e from the United States in one day,
l no more misery and suffering would
: result in one year than whisky pro-
e duces in one-tenth of that time
= We are fully convinced that this
e country can do without whisky faI
S better than it can do with it, but the
Y question is, how are you going to get
S rid of it? We believe it will require
f a stronger amendment to the consti-
= tuition than the one now proposed to
\ rid Tennessee of it. There is danger
y Of the State cutting off large source