Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1889-06-22
Prohibition In Pennsylvania.


Pennsylvania that is for protection by
$4,000 is against prohibition by more than
100000. In no state of the union have
prohibitionists entered upon campaign
for the adoption of the prohibition
amendment to the state constitution with
greater enthusiasm and confidence, and
in no state, not even in Massachusetts.
have they been so Overwhelmingly
beaten
There was ground for this confidence
in Pennsylvania. Mr.. Wanamaker, the
postmaster general, was exertng himself
openly in behalf of the amendment.
Matt Quay, the junior senator of the
state and the senior campaigner of the
republican party, had led the prohibition
lists to believe that he and his machinery
in the state would be with them. 1t was
a bargain whereby he averted their oppo-
sition to the election of Gov. Beaver.
But Wanamaker has no real strength in
politics and Quay is simply a trader whose
word as politician isn't good. When
they will have sufficiently recovered from
their amazement to look about them the
prohibitionists will discover that even
had the politicians kept faith with them
by the sturdy sober sense of the electors
OF pennsylvania. Through a drastic
high license law there is in PENNSYLVANIA
strong regulatory hold upon the liquor
traffic 1t is sufficient for all useful pur.
poses. There is is no nonsense or fanats
icism about it. Its work is efficient and
salutarY. Pennsylvanians, like all other
residents of the union, have seen that
prohibition, even as a fundamental law
in certain of the states-Maine, Iowa
and kansas-is at best no more than a
local option law. In those localities
within state where public opinion fav-
ors prohibition, there are no saloons. In
other localities dram shops are openly
operated. This is prohibition at best.
Prohibition at its worst encourages n
mean espionage and fosters meaner
hypocrisy. 1t begets cant, encourages
humbug, and fails of any real reforma-
tory work. The sturdy. level-headed
old burghers of Icnnsylvania have a
wholesome liquor law, and do not pro-
pose to take any chances under a pro-
hibition, which has been demonstrated
time and again is imperative save where
the dram shop would not be tolerated at
all.
What will be the effect of the vote in
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania? The
movement for prohibition is manifestly
checked. Will prohibi,ioDists persist?
Many OF them are sincere and earnest and
will insist on going forward. But they
will have little to hope for in any state
with reasonably rigid liquor law. And
they may have something to lose. Rhode
Island is considering whether or not it
VIII retain its prohibition law. In Iowa
since the adoption of prohibition through
the agency of the republican party the
republican majority has diminished. Last
year 1t was less than half the majority
given to Garfield. This reaction, attrib-
utable In part to dissatisfaction with even
such prohibition as is had in Iowa, NAV
receive so great an impetus by the posi-
ton on the liquor question taken emphat-
lcally by staid old commonwealth like
pennsylvania and Massachusetts as seri-
ously to initiate against republican suc-
cess in the Iowa gubernatorial campaign
this year.
Politicians have looked upon prohibi.
ton with wary and uneasy eye. They
will now regard it as decaying cause.