The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-05-31
Il W METHODS.


The twoe ontending policies in the treat
ment of the drink question in this country
are local control, with high taxation, and pro-
hibition. Both have been somewhat encum.
bered by the inexact use of terms. The use
of license for 'tax" has been q source Of
confusion. Many conscientious opponents of
which theyswould gladly tax. The idea with
some seems to be that a license is not only a
permit and to that extent q legal recognition
and Endorsement of the traffic, but that it
actually creates it, and that it could not exist
without "a license" In q political or govern
mental sense this is not so. Many trades and
occupations not in themselves unlawful are
licensed or made subject to license tax. The
license is a police regulation, not a permit.
The Constitution of Arkansas recognizes this
idea in a provision that 'the General Assem-
bly, shall tax all privileges, pursuits and occu-
pations that are of no real use to society; all
others shall be exempt" In carrying out
this idea of regulation a license
tax may be made SO heavy as to be
prohibitory. The idea of revenue is worth
keeping in view, and a policy that will re-
strain and regulate a public Evil, and at the
same time yield a large revenue to the State,
Is certainly better than one which restraints
without producing any revenue. For the
most enthusiastic friend Of prohibition cannot
claim that it does more than restrain the
traffic, and it is still an open question whether
local control with high taxation is not as eff
fective in this direction as prohibition, to say
nothing of the evil of having on the statute
books a law that cannot be enforced and is
violated every day of the year. II is a mis-
take to claim or suppose that prohibition is q
proved success OF high taxation with local
control a proved failure. They are both on
trial. In Massachusetts,, of which Maine was
. part until 1920, the tax system was in force
till 1885, when the principle of local control
was added and resulted in practical prohibi-
ton in nearly every county of the
State. In 1852 az prohibitoryss law was
passed and remained in force till
1875, when q license or tax-law was passed,
and has been in force ever since. At the
present lime Massachusetts, has the most
stringent, the best-guarded, and most efficient
tax-law of any State in the Union. She has
tried prohibition and high tax and adheres to
the latter. Maine and Vermont have ad-
hered to prohibition for many years, the for
mer since 1851, and the latter since 1852.
New Hampshire has a prohibitory law, but it
10 hardly enforced at all. Rhode Island passed
. prohibitory law in 1852, substituted local
control and taxation in 1868, passed the
Maine law again in 1874, and went back to
the other system in 1875. Connecticut passed
the Maine law in 1854, never enforced it, and
repealed it in 1872. New York passed it in
1855 and repealed it two years later. In
Michigan the Constitution of 1850 forbade IL
cense laws. In 1855 she passed the Maine law.
and repealed it in 1875, and in 1876 the
no-license clause of the Constitution
was repealed. Kansas has had q prohib-
itory law since 1881, and reports are
very conflicting as to its results. The new
law in Nebraska probably embodies the prin-
ciple Of local control and high taxation better
than any other, but it has not been in force
long enough to fully demonstrate its opera
ton. In some of the Southern States, nota-
bly, in Georgia, local control has resulted in
prohibition in a large number Of counties, as
seen that both plans are on trial. Several
States have tried prohibition and returned to
the tax system, but no State has abandoned
local control and high taxation for prohibition.