Waterbury evening Democrat., 1889-04-08


 that constitutional prohibition, in the present temper of the American people, is entirely impracticable, and that wherever it has been tried it has proved a failure
 The Boston Herald has made a very careful and systematic canvass of the state with view to determining the probable fate of the amendment, from which it appears certain that it will be voted down. The canvass has been car ried throughout the state, no locality being omitted in the survey except the county of Suffolk, in which owing to the vote of Boston there is no room for difference of opinion concerning the re- suit. The conditions under which the canvass was conducted were such that the figures furnished were largely from those who favor the adoption of the amendment. The parties engaged in the work of getting votes for the amend ment have been invariably consult ed where they were accessible and were willing to give opinions. Even when their judgments in the case have seemed to be sanguine they have been accepted by the Herald unless distinctly over borne by other evidence. The purpose was to let the friends of constitutional prohibition predict and present as good a showing for their scheme as they could.
 From the figures of the Herald it would appear that in the various coun- ties of the state, outside of Suffolk from which no estimates are ventured, there would be a majority for the amendment of l4,6SS and a majority against it of 1S,2S0, leaving an apparent majority of 3,592 against prohibition. It being ad- mitted by everybody that prohibition, in order to carry the state, must sweep down upon Suffolk county with good number of thousands in majority, it would seem from these figures, furnish ed principally by the friends of the amendment, that there is very little chance of the success of prohibition in Massachusetts at this time. On the favorable showing given to the amend ment outside of Boston, it will come into against it. The very smallest estimate that anyone, even the strongest prohibit tionist, has ventured to give of Boston's majority against the amendment is 10000 votes, and the probability is that it will be more nearly double that num- ber The nti-prohibitionists, it is we'll known, have an organization as we'll as those who are striving for the amend ment, and they claim to have informa- ton which leads them to the belief that their majority will be at least 25,000 in the state against it. Politicians of the republican party have placed it as high as 40, ,000 some have even said 50,O0O.
 It is interesting, however, to note that it is admitted, even by the prohibitionists themselves, that the vote on the amendment will show much greater majority against it than that which favors license. This will come from the class of temperance men who look upon the policy of prohi- bition in the constitution as altogether mistaken at the present stage of temper ance effort. Some of them are not even for prohibition at all until the present license system has had a further trial, or impending has gone into operation. Others believe in prohibition i'll law, but are doubtful about it in the constitution, and are altogether reluctant to attempt it in the latter until it has been previ- ously tried in the other case. These men of both classes will vote to such an ex- tent against the prohibition amendment as to make very great difference in the vote of the cities, and not little in that of the country towns. Another feature is the opposition of the western part of the state to the amendment. The cider clause in the amendment is having much effect among the farmers of this regime where the same results are anticipated that were realized in 1867, when., cider having been attacked by the attempted enforcement of the prohibitory law then existing against it, revolution in the state was created largely by the votes of the farming interest.
 The result in Massachusetts, which certainly seems from the Herald's fore cast and other indications to be a fore gone conclusion against constitutional prohibition, is likely to have some con- siderable effect in staying the hopes and enthusiasm of those visionary indi- viduals who think drinking can be pre- vented by prohibition. It does not seem at all likely, as Senator Platt said last year at Woodstock, that prohibition can ever be engrafted in this country until the majority of the voters are themselves s t total abstainers. Until such time arrives. which is not likely to be in our day or generation, either statutory or consti- tutional prohibition cannot be made eff fective, and no thinking man can subscribe to the effort to impose it on the country.