Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-03-21
DOES IT pROHIBlT2
Effective In Cities; Works Well in
eural Districts-why Richmond
n should 90 Against Prohibition.


pd interest in whatever concerns the
)beine of society, and should con-
butte in whatever way he can to the
hilton OF the yexed questions that
m time TO time disturb the public
nd.
Prohibition Is one OF these ques-
ms. and in the homo. al tho place Of
nsiness, and on the strees-corner men
he asking each other, +" What are you
koing TO do about isg" Some have de.
kided for license, others against IL but
huoh the larger number are yet unde-
1ermined as TO how their votes will be
East. II is to this class OF dispassionate
Breaders. who wish to do what is for the
kbest interest Of our fair city, that write
$w hat follows:
& That the use Of liquor in any form is
Eat best dangerous, and that its intern
perate indulgence has been the prolific
9somce Of injury to the individual and
Fto the State none will deny that its
sale and purchase should be under pro-
per legal restrictions as 10 time and
place all will agree but as TO whether
B the prohibition of its sale in any par
Eticular community can be successfully
<maintained, there is wide difference Of
Eopinion among thoughtful and OBJ
servant men.
/ confess that / belong to that class
rho believe that you cannot by legal
enactment abolish the sale Of liquor
In large towns or cities. We tried it in
Richmond during the war, and yet,
Notwithstanding the heavy penalties
Imposed upon all violators of the law,
{ and the arbitrary power conferred by
martial law upon the authorities to
punish offenders, there was as much
liquor sold and as much drunkenness as
at any other period Of our municipal
history. But it may be said those
were times of such anarchy and con-
fusion that all law was, more or less,
discarded, and that in times of peace
there would be more respect for au-
thority, and prohibition would have
fairer chance. Then let US see what,
under more favorable circumstances, has
been the experience Of other commu-
mites.
Prohibition is no new idea. Maine,
Kansas, and Iowa all have laws to pro-
bibit the sale Of liquor. The concur
rent testimony Of many disinterested
observers is that IN the rural districts,
with public sentiment previously ex-
listing in favor Of it, the law can be en-
forced, but that in the larger towns and
cities prohibition has increased rather
than diminished the sale Of liquor. A
few months ago the Christian Union
endeavored to ascertain from its sub
scribers in Iowa the effect Of prohibit
ton in that State on the number and
character of the saloons and the amount
of drunkenness and disorder. Core
spondents from the rural sections were
nearly all agreed that the law was gen.
orally enforced. whilst those from the
larger towns and cities were equally
unanimous that the law was a failure.
The following are some Of the answers
received
Des Moines, with population of
90. 40S-under license law had sixty
saloons; under prohibition has $50;
more sly drinking.
Dubuque, with a population Of 3d.
000-under license had l24 saloons
now has l43; fully as much drinking.
Keokuk, with $4,000 inhabitants
liquor to-day sold as freely and openly
as ever before. The marshal's report
shows quarterly a great amount of
drunkenness and disorder.
Davenport, with population Of 49,
OOO-increase from 20 to 30 per cent.
in number Of saloons new saloons of
worse character amount of drinking
increased the law worse than fail
ure.
Burlington, population of 1900
number of saloons more than double;
character worse; drunkenness aud dis.
order increased.
DR.. Howard Crosby, who is distin-
guished for his zeal in the cause of tenn
perance, reports that the law is no bet
ter enforced in the cities Of Maine. He
states that Portland and Bangor have
more liquor saloons to the population
than New York city. In personal
letter received from him few days ago
he writes me that his information WIS
received from the most trustworthy
sources. The result Of his investiga-
ton is TO convince him that prohibition
does not prohibit, and that it is mex
pedient to press it where the public
sentiment does not sustain it, for under
such circumstances a prohibitory law
is merely promotiye of law-breaking
spirit.
The effect Of the law in Kansas, as
reported by correspondent Of the
New York Erening Post, is similar to
that in Iowa and Maine.
But some will say, Grant that what you
write is true; something must be done for
the safety Of the people against the
growing evils of intemperance. Pro-
hibition is better than nothing. My re-
ply is that remedy has been tried aud
found TO be effective. | mean high
license. Wherever the experiment of
high license has been tried it has re-
suited in greater revenue to the State,
reduction OF the number Of saloons,
and less drunkenness and disorder.
Illinois has such law. In 1882 there
we're in Chicago 1919 saloons, while in
1885, under high license, there are only
500 saloons, although the popu-
'lation had in the mean time in-
creased nearly 20 per cent.
whilst the revenue bad increased from
sl95, $40 to sl,72l,474. Chicago's ex-
perience is not exceptional. The num-
Der Of saloons in Springfield has been
reduced 80 per per cent. whilst the
revenue is increased 2Sl per cent. To-
ledo reports her revenue doubled [; all
the low groceries shut up, and the busi-
ness Of the Police Court diminished so
per cent. Rock Island reports "A saloons
under low license; SO under high license;
low groggeries rooted out, and 80 per
cent. less Of drunkenness and disorder.
Taken as a whole the State Of Illinois
has decreased the number Of her saloons
from $4,000 to 1900, and increased her
revenue from that source from 500, 600
L..