The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-07-31
THE PROHIBITION QUESTION
A Brilliantly Written and Unbiased Re-
view of the LiquOr-Drinking Evil.
Nothing Can Be Said in Favor of the Saloon,
Whether Licensed or Unlicensed"
bitiOn Decided Success in Kansas.

The case stated by the Prohibitionists is
that not less than 81 ,OOO. O00, 600 are annu-
ally spent in the United States for foreign
and domestic Wines malt liquors and dis
titled spirits This is more than is expend-
ed for beef, pork and flour, and nearly
equals the amount paid for wages In all the
manufacturing establishments of every de-
scrption in the country. In less than two
years it would meet all the current expenses
of the government and extinguish the pub
lie debt. Practically this gigantic sum Of
money is wasted. tits distracted from the
wealth and revenues of the Nation. OF
any man in health who drinks intoxicating
liquors the best that can be said is that he
escapes harm.
This enormous disbursement yields no
equivalent either to the individual or to
the community in nutrition, strength or
happiness. To the State it results in
perceptible loss of productive energy. and
dlminution of its moral forces. 1t i'm
pairs the capacity of the citizens for labor
and for military service indefinitely multi
plies the number of criminals and paupers,
and UNNECESSARILY increases the aggregate
of human wretch edness. :
Were these evils confined to the guilty
| they would be less intolerable, but they
bear heaviest upon the defenseless and the
innocent. The frenzied blows of the
drunken ruffian and murderer fall upon
victims who. in the absence of his tender
| ness and compassion, have neither weapon
nor shield, and are destitute alike of pro-
| lection and redress.
| The advocates of license and local option
| contend that the appetite for alcohol is as
universal as is its diffusion among the
organic substances of the natural world.
| Its consumption in some form as beverage
| is coeval with the human race, and will
| continue so long as life endures upon the
| planet. Moderately used it is not injurious
! to the individual or to society.
They further insist that the most radical
| and resOlute advocates of temperance do
| not claim that there is any more justifica-
tiOn for interference by the law with the
moderate use of alcoholic liquors than with
the chewing. smoking and shutting of to-
baceO or the drinking OF coffee or tea. The
| use of liquors may be of no advantage;
abstinence would, perhaps. be better; but
indulgence is personal right and every
citizen is entitled to do as he p!eases, SO
| long as he does not I'M ure the life, liberty
| or property of another.
| None of the ohibitory amendments or
statutes are directed against the practice
| of drinking. 1t is not denounced or inter-
| dicted, and as 1t is not wrong per sc, the
| right must be admitted to exist. 1t is with
the abuse, and not the use, of intoxicants
| that society is concerned, and against this
| legislation should be directed. Intemper-
| ance is the evil that is to be corrected, and
| when this is accomplished the authority of
| the State is at an end.
Drunkenness being the offense. and the
drunkard the offender. the singular and IL
logical aspect of prohibition is that it does
| not deal directly with either, but endeavors
| to prevent one and reform the other by for
bidding to all the lawful use Ofintoxicating
| liquors as a beverage, because some are adj
dicted to excess. II it is right to manu-
facture and sell intoxicating liquors for
| medicinal. scientific and mechanical pur-
poses. and right to drink them in modera-
| ton, it seems unreasonable to punish the
innocent and let the guilty 60 free.
In larceny the OffeRse IS stealing; the Of
| fender is the thief Society Furnishes the
person who unlawfully takes and carries
horses away. but does not forbid the citizen
to breed horses and keep them for sale or
for other purposes admitted to be .legiti-
mate. The malicious burningof dwelling
is felony; We imprlsOn the offender. bat do
not forbid the building of houses. The IL
licit qualification of the sexual appetite in
| flicts unspeakable mischiefs and maladies
| upon mankind; but to relieve society from
| their consequences, limitations are not
placed upon the lawful commerce of mar
| riage, nor is the distinction between the
sexes Obliterated.
The objection to licensing the sale of in.
| tOXicating liquors because it licenses crime
is sentimental rather than real for it is not
i a
The assumed analogy between drinking
and slavery, SO often asserted by the Pro-
hibitiOnist, is fallacious and sOphistical.
Slavery is a violation of the natural rights
of man. 1t is not lawful to hold human
being in bondage, even for medicinal, scien-
| titic or mechanical purposes, but the right
to sell liquors for these purposes is admit
ted, and the right to drink them temperate
| ly is not denied.
This is summary of the contention now
proceeding in the United States upon the
| liquor problem, the solution of which has
engaged the attention of thoughtful and
patriotic men in all civilized countries for
centuries. So long ago as 1910 Sir Matthew
Hale declared that so per cent. of the crimes
committed in England were due to drunk
enness, and the discussion of the relative
merits OF License and prohibition in re-
been continuous through the long interval.
For the past fifty years the agitation has
been incessapt, and the issues presented
appear to be such as can be decided only
by experience.
In Massachusetts, of which Maine was a
portion until 1870, the license system was
in force until 1886. Power was then given
to the county commissioners, who were
elected by the people. to grant or refuse
licenses. SO that what is commonly called
local option" was practically put in force.
Before 1883 this had become prohibition in
nearly all the counties. and in that year
the ''fifteen-gallon law" was passed, pro-
hibiting the sale of less than that amount
of liquor at one time, but it was repealed
the next year. In 1852 prOhibitOry law
was passed, which, with many amend
/ ments, remained in force until 1875, when a
license law was passed which has since
continued in operation. During the pres
emit year an election has been held upon the
question of constitutional prohibition In
total poll of 22O, 900, the proposed amend
ment received. in round numbers, 5000 as
against $4,000 The entire vote was less
than two-thirds of that cast at the presi-
Dental election in November, which shows
that besides the actual majority of A. 200.
more than 100000 voters declined to
assist in the suppression of the
liquor traffic at the cost of imposing
upon the commonwealth the tentative
remedy of prohibition The result was due
to the convictions of the great conservative
body of electors, who declined to give their
support to what they considered to be- an
incorporate method of dealing with alco-
hOlic intemperance. The discussion was
earnest, honest and thorough. The voters
of Massachusetts studied the question in
the light of the experience in Maine and
the other States of the Union for more than
half century. They had witnessed the
operation within their own State of prohi-
bition, local option. license and other ex-
perimental legislation, and decided to ad-
here to the system of stringent limitation,
under which the number of licenses in Bos-
ton was reduced from ZOO to 7S0.
The public agitation of the drink question
| in Kansas began with the organization of
4 IL ~ Tha 10 ,,,fT t.,