West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1888-03-15
LICENSE VS.. PROHIBITION.

under in his race for the nayoralty of
Portland in the city election to-day by
the Republican candidate, Charles j.
Chapman, with a majority of 1900. 1t
was fight Of rum against prohibition
and the latter was badly beaten
This is what the associated press
tells US. What do our Prohibition
friends think of iti This, in the prohi-
bition State Of Maine--a State they
pride themselves on for morality and
temperance.
The writer is not an advocate Of rum
but he is one among the number who
does not believe that prohibition pro-
hibits, even in the county Of Preston.
and he would be pleased to have ad-
vocates of prohibition in this county to
prove the opposite. There is not
town Of any size in Preston county
but what whisky is sold in violation Of
the law-sold openly and dc6antly I
might say. Can Prohibitionists deny
itT The liquor traffic is carried on by
irresponsible parties who have no res
pect for the law, and when they arc in
dicted and prosecuted-which is like
angels visits, few and far between
they are confined in our county Jail
where the taxpayers have to support
them. The law has been indicated
and the taxpayers has to pay for the
vindicatioD Who is benefited by il
Along comes another Mr.. Rumseller
who takes the place of the person in
Jail and sells, unmolested and untram-
meled, for certain period. when he is
finally brought to justice and suffers
the penalty Of incarceration in our
county Jail, and the dear taxpayer is
the one who pays the fiddler, although
he is denied the pleasure of dancing to
the music. For every man who is ar
rested and prosecuted there is another
man TO take his place, and the illegal
selling Of whisky goes on. The tax
payers have to pay for the prosecution
and support of the rumseller, and the
Prohibitionists exclaim that the law is
being enforced and that whisky drink
ing will soon be a thing of the past.
But is it sol Will statistics sustain
them, ia the question: Let them prove
1t. believe there is less drunken
ness every day, but do not attribute
it to prohibition. give the credit to
education and responsibility. know
men of former years who used TO i'm
bibe quite freely, but Of late years
they do not II you ask them why
they will tell you they consider il a
disgrace. Convince and educate men
that it is disreputable and disgraceful
to get drunk. and you will have no
use for prohibition.
Self-respect will compel them to res
Peet the law, or be outcasts from society.
Stunned and despised by everybody.
Until then, the question is whether it
would not be better to grant license in
this county is what / would like 10 see
discussed by the advocates Of prohibit
ton and license. As far as prohibition
goes in this county it Is a failure. It
Is my opinion that it IL an educator Of
falsehood and perjury Nine men out
OF ten who arc summoned before the
grand jury will fail 10 indiot the whisky
vender. Why is 10 Because they
are confronted BY tho Law on one side
and conscience on the other. Their
conscience rebels against giving testi-
mony against those who sold them the
whisky, and they will svade the oues-
tons Of the grand jury, and when com
PEELED to answer one way Or the other
they will actually violate their oaths
IN order 70 shield the men who cold
them whisky, a. they no doubt believe
It morally right as they are placed be-
tween two evils. This is the logical
conclusion We come 70 when We soc ton
or hftcn men summoned before the
grand jury-men who are known 20
frequent the rum-holes-and wo End
but ono or two indictments against tho
whisky men. IL Il not reasonable 70
suppose that there Is something wrong
with their testimony II these men
who are summoned before the grand
jury end end 10 indictments, We must