Mexico weekly ledger. (Mexico, Mo.) 1855-1956, 1886-11-04
PROHIBITION.
As Viewed From q Business Stand.
peint-A Correspondent Thinks
1t VIII Not Do.

TO the Editor OF the Ledger.
Mexico. Mo-, Oct 29.--As the
question of prohibition is absorbing
much of the pull lie interest in Ms
souri, at this time, it might be well to
discuss in a rational way the effects
which a prohbitory amendment to
the constitution would entail upon
the tax-paying people of the state.
Men too often ally themselves with
such movements without ever con-
sidering the results that will follow
the success of such movements. L
admit that rejecting, careful men do
not often do this, and while the pro-
hibition movement counts within its
fold many good men, they are there
because they have as yet only con-
sidered one side of the question.
When they look at the other side,
the affects, l doubt very much wheth-
er many, who are now classed as its
warmest and most earnest supporters,
weuld continue to be so, but on the
contrary would just as earnestly OBJ
ject to such amendment.
Let us consider only for a moment
what the high license system has done
and is doing to lesson the evils
growing out of the sale of liquor.
When it was adopted there were
nearly if not quite five thousand
saloons (dram shops) in the state,
from which there was collected an
nually little less than FIVE hundred
thousand dollars. What do we see
to-day? There are only about twen-
ty-eight hundred saloons to- day in the
state, from which there is annually
collected more than one million five
hundred thousand dollars.
Who and What party has done this? ?
I answer. The high license system
was passed by Democratic legisla-
ture, approved by Democratic Gov
ernor, and is being executed by
Democratic officers. Further, it has
done more in the four years aud less
of its existence to lessen the evils of
the liquor business than all the COM
blned efforts of Prohibitionists since
the inception of the crusade against
whisky. These are facts supported
by absolute and indisputable testi-
mony, within the reach of all who de-
sire to be informed upon the subject.
Now as to the legal aspect of the
question. The Eighth q. S. Judicial
Circuit Court has recently decided
the question of compensation by
laying down the doctrine that the
owners CT breweries and distilleries
and other manufactures of spurious
liquors engaged in the business at
the time prohibitory amendment is
adopted. shall be compensated by the
state for the destruction of their
property consequent upon the adop-
ton of such prohibitory amendment.
This is not only sound law but also
sound morals.
A careful estimate puts the brew
ing and distilling property owned and
operated in this state at about or q
little over fifty million dollars, exclu,
sive of the grape industry, which will
swell the aggregate to nearly, if not
quite, seventy-five millions. To this
doctrine of compensation all the
courts, both Federal and State, must
adhere, and it matters not what are
the conditions attending the adop-
ton of prohibitery amendment, the
people cannot escape the burden OF
compensation.
Are they ready, the tax-paying
people of Missouri, to shoulder this
additional burden of nearly seventy
five million dollars?
I doubt extremely if even the most
ranting Prohibitionist who, being the
owner of real estate in Missouri
would be willing to voluntarily shoul
der such a burden could he be salts.
fed that his property would have tc
pay its proportion of the compensa
tion tax, and il he be a reasonable
man, endowed with common prudenc,
and Judgment, he will investigate tn,
assertions above made before he play
| hide-and-seek with sword that will
assuredly cut both up and down.
1Frorp