The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1888-06-08
AUTHORIZATION.

EDITOR BULLETIN:- 'SOllu-fOr-
Reform in p. G. A, June lst and
"Friend of Restriction" in BULLETIN
of June 9th, make some assertions
and many suggestions.
The p. c. a. writer says "Let me
rewrite the paragraph quoted in an
amended form from the standpoint
of facts, figures, history and COM
mon sense, etc. Not that Mr.. J, T.
Smith needs any assistance, so far
as l am aware, but for the help Of
SoIid-for- Reform I will give some
facts, figures, history, etc., from
places where experiments in prohi-
bition have been tried.
In 1851 Maine passed prohibit
tory law which, as history tells us,
caused bloodshed and riot, and had
to be repealed in 1856 and a licence
law was substituted, which remain
ed in force until 1868 when it was
repealed and the present law en-
acted.
Let us see how prohibition works
in that State. The inspectors Of
the Maine State Prison in their an
nual report to the Governor of the
State in 1882 (page 32) said, "In
many cities and towns in this State,
liquor, if not as free as water, is to
be had by those who want it.
Maine has IA Incorporated cities
with populations ranging from s.
l54 to $3.50. Hon. Dingley,
Prohibition Congressman from that
State, said that there were 2,468 ar
rests for drunkenness in 1888, which
makes one person out of every 5S
of the population. And the same
person tells us that in the city OF
Portland, one out of every 20 was
arrested for drunkenness in 1888
Does Prohibition prohibit there
In Bedford, Maine, with popula
ton Of u, ,651, in 1880, there were
arrested for drunkenness 70 person.
and in 1888, 80 drunks were takel
into the lookup. In Bangor, popu
lation 1886, in 1880 arrests TO
drunkenness 242, in 1881 303 per
sons and in 1882 293 persons. Il
Portland, with population of 93,
$40, in 1880 the arrests for drunk
enness were COG, in 1881 $50, an
in 1882 603.
Does not the above show the foil
of endeavoring TO prohibit liquor j
this kingdom?
New Hampshire enacted prohib
tory laws in 1866, and has endei
vored to enforce them ever sine,
The statistics of the Governmel
however show us that in 1883 thcl
were 1906 retail and z wholesa
liquor dealers in the state, and q
retail beer dealers. This is prob
bition with vengance!
Vermont passed prohibiting law
( in 1858 and has since endeavored
+ enforce the law, but the GovernmeI
statistics show us that there are 5:
places for supplying the thirsty wi
! liquid refreshments.
Kansas, of course, is a model pr
hibition state. Let us examine
few statistics. There were arrests
for drunkenness in Emporia, Ka
sas, in 1880, 102 persons; in 18S
l91 persons; in Parsons in 1880, 81
= in 1888, so; in Wyandotte in l8S
e so; in 1888, G8; in Topeka in 1888
: 1868; in 1888, 391; in Lawrence
1880, 118; in 1883, lGS; and so
throughout the state until we have
grand total of arrests for drunke
t ness in 1880, 1869 persons, and
1883, 1869, and by examination
government statistics we find that
: 1880 there were 1921 retail and
! wholesale liquor dealers doing bu
0 ness in the state besides III be
e retailers, so that with 1903 plaC
9 to buy something to drink the pl
hIbitionist had no excuse for goi
thirsty and we find still furtl
y that in 1883 there was an actual
y crease in the number Of liqu
+ dealers, as the government statisti
p show 1908 or 35 more than in 1875
: Iowa had in 1888, 1858 retail liqu
:, stores and 492 beer houses, will
d her sacred prohibition borders.
From the foregoing condens