The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1886-06-04
WOULD YOU FAVOR LICENSING
A WRONG?


This question is asked by those who
object to high license system. In
response to that he would ask, +" Would
you favor restricting wrong which
you could not wholly eradicate?"
Let us go back to the time when
traffic in intoxicating liquor was as
free as in any other commodity; for
there was such tine, and not 80 far
back as many imagine, though we do
not recall The precise date. It was
found that the free traffic was detri-
mental to the public good, and tax
was imposed as restriction, rather
than as license, and from that begin
ming has grown our present license
system. A wrong is found to exist
upon which public opinion is divided.
In order to be successful, public opin-
ion must precede legislation, otherwise
the enforcement of law is difficult.
Under present circumstances, public
sentiment does not sustain prohibit
tory law, and it seems impracticable
to wholly eradicate the evil; therefore,
in order to curtail it, to embarrass it,
and deter as many as possible from
entering into the traffic, restriction is
placed upon it, rather than it should
run rampant.
In speaking of liquor license, legal
writer in the American Cyclopedia
says: (" 1t gives no permission to carry
on the business, but taces it if it is
carried on. The tax or restriction is
not imposed as a source of revenue,
like our internal revenue system, in
troduced to defray war expenses, but
more of the nature of a fine for a mis-.
demeanor. The state offers no induce
ment to enter into the business, but
virtually says, "If you do engage in it,
we will impose heavy tax upon you.'
The funds thus collected are incidental
and not levied for the purpose of rev.
enue. The traffic is thus restricted,
whereas, with no restriction, it might
become general, and every merchant
and hotel-keeper be free to retail. as
was the case formerly. AS long as
we are satisfied that we could not rem
der prohibitory act effective, let us
approach it as nearly as practicable
and impose restriction so heavy as
to cripple it, and virtually tax it out
of existence, and then we are prepared
for prohibitory act. AS an illustra-
ton we may refer to the law now pend
ing to tax oleomargarine or artificial
butter. 1t is not deemed expedient to
prohibit it by law, but to impose tax
upon it 50 heavy that neither the man
ufacturer nor retailer can handle it
with profit. :.
While labOring under difficulty we
have also the dealers themselves to aid
in enforcing the law, for, having paid
heavy restriction tax, they are jeal.
Gus of others who may attempt to
evade it, and thus gain that advantage
in their competition. The high license
is having its embarrassing effects, by
reducing the number of saloons, both
in this state and Illinois and also in
other states. Whether any less liquor
will be actually sold we cannot say,
but by reducing the number they can
be more effectually controlled, and
made to comply with the law. Already
we hear the complaint that the license
is so high they cannot live by it. Very
well; we do not want them to live by
it, but prefer to see them live by some
honest calling which is not restricted.
We would compel the removal of
screens of all kinds in the saloons,
throwing the traffic open to the pass
ers-by. If the sale or patronage is not
disreputable, there should be no object
for concealment. Let it be thrown
open to the public view, the same as
merchants make display of both
goods and customers.
The popular sign for a saloon is
King Gambrinus astride of beer
barrel holding aloft mug of the FOAM
ing beverage, while he looks upon it
with glistening eyes, as a starving
man would look upon his dinner. We
would suggest the red flag, supple
mented by the skull and cross-bones, as