The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1886-12-02
THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

When Ohio adopted state constltu-
ton in 1852 clause was inserted for
bidding the licensing of the liquor
traffic. Since the adoption of that
constitution liquor has been soil to
minors, habitual drunkards and to
all dangerous classes indiscrimi-
nately. 1t has been found to be
almost impossible to prevent the
establishment and existence of this
sort Of traffic because the only com.
petent witnesses were those danger.
Gus characters, who, rather than ties.
tify against the liquor seller, would
commit perjury.
In 1888 special messenger Of one of
the leading New York papers was
sent to travel from city to city and
from town to town through the state
of Maine to ascertain facts as to the
success or failure Of the law of prohi-
bition. He reported the law fail
ure. Neal Dow denied this, and
asserted positively that not one
twentieth of the liquor was sold that
had been before the adoption Of legal
prohibition. Since then, in recent
political canvass in the state, Mr..
Dow undertook to show the hostility
OF the republican party TO the law
and the distractions which he
claimed they had placed in the way
of its enforcement. He admitted all
that he bad formerly denied, and
declared that the volume of the liquor
traffic had not been reduced within
the last twenty years. In every city,
except Portland. he stated that the
liquor traffic had been, and was
absolutely ignored. Now, with a
high license, the liquor business
would be placed in the hands of
responsible men. They would be
protected by the law and it would not
be to their interest to sell to
minors or habitual drunkards. Soci.
ETY. would then have some protection,
whereas now it has none. 1t prohi.
bition prohibited there might be som
reason to cling to it, but it does not.
1t simply drives the liquor saloons
into dangerous and disreputable
localities, and places it in the hands
of the reckless and unprincipled who
care only for the money that is to be
made out of it, and makes it the more
dangerous to society. We oppose
prohibition because we believe 1T can
Z do little. il any good. If selling
liquor, even to sober men, is crime,
it is certainly criminal for sober men
to drink it. The law to be consistent
ought to be directed against the man
who patronizes the saloon, without
whom these samplerooms will die a
natural death. Temperance reformers
should seek to make men temperate,
not by prohibiting the sale of liquor
to them, but by inducing them not to
use it to excess. As long as large
majority of the people use more or less
intoxicating liquors, it is useless to
prohibit the sale Of it. Multiplicity
of liquor saloons offers temptations
and facilities to minors and llabitual
drunkards to crafty their improper
desires. That there are too many
liquor saloons there can be no donbt.
The law should interfere to regulate
the sale and confine it as far as pos.
sible within the limits which legisla.
tim is entitled to prescribe. These
statements are not made because we
are opposed to temperance. On
the contrary, we are for promoting
the cause of temperance, and seek to
stay the tide of evil which follows
the excessive use Of intoxicating
liquors. We oppose prohibition
because we beiieve in principle 1t is
wrong, and can do little, it any good.
WE believe that the theory of prohi.
bition will sooner or later be aban.
doned for the system of regulation,
which shall seek to limit the sale as