The Kimball graphic. (Kimball, Brule County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1905, 1889-09-20
For Constitutional Prohibition. No
For Minority Representation. Yes.

Inc hrst issue of the Evening Call
would seem to indicate that what the pro.
hlbition clause of the constitution at
tempts is merely prohibition of the
saloon as an institution Is this the case
Is 1t proposed to allow the sale of liquor
say by a grocer keeper or by a druggist.
or as other commodities are sold which
. considerable proportion of quite re.
spectacle people may want to buy? Is
1t not much more than the open saloon.
against which SO much may be said.
that is made the object OF the prolIbi,
tlon! IT the open saloon is the object,
might not that be reached by means
more enecttve and less Objectionable?
Is u met misleading to attempt to bolster
prohibition almost exclusively by denun-
citation of the ol,en saloon, when prohihi-
ton Is directed against SO much more
than the open SUBDIVISIONS Falls Preas.
Aye, there's the rub! The Press
has the right idea of the matter ].
actly. The Call "a new paper just
printed at Sioux Falls IN the interest
of prohibition) probably started in
with the we'll worn cry ''the home
against the saloon" and a lot more
similar sentimental rot. This is
about the line of argument followed
by nearly all papers fayoring prohi.
bitlon and speakers similarly in
clined. 1t isn't aquestion of saloons
or no saloons now confronting the
people of South Dakota. If 1t were
"might not the object be reached by
means more effective and less objec-
tionable?"-as the Press puts it-that
is by Legislative enactment. 1t is by
such misleading issues as this "home
against the saloon fol-de-rol that the
prohibitionists seek sympathy for
their cause and win nota rev votes
from those who are too lazy mentally
to consider how much more than the
open saloon constitutional prohibi-
ton is directed against. The radical
difference between prohibition by leg.
lslatlve enactment and constitutional
prohibition also seems utterly beyond
the reasoning power of fully as many.
In the n case the open saloon as
an institution might be done away
with as effectively as under constitI.
tional prohibition; aye, even o SO.
While in the other case constitutional
prohibition is directed against the
manufacture, sale or use Of intoxlcat-
ing liquors as a beverage in any man.
ner whatsoever. 1t classes the man
who sells a bottle of grape wine for
household use as much of a law
breaker as the man who reta,ls a glass
OF whlskey over the bar of a grocery,
and as the user must be as bad as the
seller the man who uses hard cider
or wine in moderation is as bad in
eyes of constitutional prohibition as
the most abandoned drunkard. In
other words, constitutional prohibi.
ton makes a crime of q thing that is
not a crime.
The foundation,in fact, upon which
the whole structure of constitutional
prohibition rests is the assumption
that all drinking Of intoxlcan,s is
wrong. No distinction Is made be-
tween the use and the abuse o fliquors.
1t Is a matter Of small consequence
with the average prohibitionist
PioA'OAsiOu pAoilplIS OF not.
"There is a law against stealing
horses but horses are stolen" lie SAYS.
But no social reformer has ever advo-
Gated abolishing horses. Make 1t a
CRIME to use whiskey, wine, beer and
hard cider for a beverage and the pro.
hlbitionist is aatlsficd. All, we'll,
when those who are trying to correct
the morals of the world can truthfully
and honestly say that they have
wronged no man, that they have paid
their-debts, that they do not lie, cheat
steal, defrand, or deceive, that they
do not covet what does not belong to
them, that they observe the moral Law,
and in short, that the beam is not IN
their own eye q federation of that wider
phiianthrophy and Christian spirit
that would gather the remotest parts
of the earth under their protecting
care may be tolerated.