The Portland daily press., 1888-10-04
Aword with a ProhIbItIonIs..

Mr.. J. S. White writes to the Argus as
follows:
The point wish to arrive at is-whether the
fhEss, IN my opinion the leading Republican pa
ppra advncst Sn " LAKE postlon as gen
opposed TO absolute prohibition.
We can assure Mr.. White that the PRESS
does not mean 'sto take position as a gen.
eral advocate of high licence or low license
as opposed to prohibition" neither has 1t
done so directly or by implication. The
paragraph from the PRESS which is the text
of Mr.. Whites letter related to the situation
In New York. Now the question of prohibit
tion is not involved in the gubernatorial
campaign in that State. The question there
is between free rum and certain amount Of
restriction. David Bennett Hill or Warner
Miller is to be elected Governor of that
State this fall. There is no possibility of the
election of anybody else. Hill has twice
proved himself opposed TO the restriction of
the liquor traffic by vetoing measures de-
signed to accomplish that end. He is pub
licly recognized by the rumsellers as their
friend" and almost to a man they are rally
ing around his standard. On the other
hand, Mr.. Miller has personally pledged him.
self to sign a measure of restriction, the
platform on which he stands is COM
mitted to such measure, and the liquor
interests are practically unanimous in OPP
posing him. These are the facts of the case.
They cannot be truthfully gainsaid or denied.
The PRESS has no hesitation in saying that
setting aside the question of the general
politics of the two candidates entirely,
If it were published in New York it would
labor for the election Of Mr.. Miller on the
ground that his election would be step
toward temperance reform while the election
of Hill would be a step away from it. But
that would not be advocating high license as
against prohibition and no fair minded man
could interpret it so. The PRESS has ex-
pressed the opinion that, taking the facts Of
the situation in New York as they are, the
Prohibitionists of that State should support
Mr.. Miller. 1t now reiterates it. Such a
course would not commit them to high license
as against prohibition. But the Prohibition
lists say that to impose license on the
rumt rafic is practically to endorse
1t. That is not the fact however
The rule is to allow the utmost free
dom to business. The vast majority of
businesses are not subjected to legal re-
straints of any kind. Men establish them
where they please and when they please
Now when 1t is enacted that a certain bust
ness shall only be carried on.under severe re-
strictions that enactment is an expression of
the opinion Of the majority of the community
that that business is injurious in some way
to the public health, or the public safety or
the public morals. The placing of restric-
lions on the liquor traffic is an expression Of
the average sentiment of the community that
that business is one of this kind. 1t
afiixes stigma to it, Now there are good
many people in the community who think
that this business is so injurious that it
ought to be suppressed altogether. II they
are sufficiently numerous to give reason
able hope that they can carry their view
then they ought to contend for it. But IL 1t
be absolutely certain that they cannot carry
their extreme measures and that contention
for them will tend to defeat any restriction
at all. then it seems to us that a proper regard
for the welfare of the community would lead
them to support modified measure. Such
course would never be construed by any
fair minded man as compromise with evil.
On the contrary it would, it seems to us,
meet the approval of everybody. as the best
possible course under the circumstances. A
great many men in Congress who believed
slavery morally wrong and injurious 10 the
country, voted for its restriction, thus infer
entially consenting to its continued exist
ence where it then prevailed. Supposing
they had said as some of the Prohibitionists
do in regard to the rum traffic, Nothing
short Of an act abolishing slavery shall have
our approval; ito restrict it is practically to rec
ognize what we consider SIM, would the free
States OF the North have approved their
course? Wethink not. Neither do we think
the sincere temperance sentiment of the
country will approve parallel procedure on
the part of the Prohibitionists of New York
in the present contest