Omaha daily bee., 1889-07-01
1t Was Not the Liquor Element That
Defeated Prohibition.
RENAISSANCE OF coMMoNsENsE
The Results in Pennsylvania and
Rhode Island Attest tho Disap-
pointment of the People in
sumptuary Legislation.
From a Practical Standpoint.

| thdb ~ II uCJJBF 10 uhNt u UOucTdbt UltdS-
ure which is certain to be executed, than an
immoderate one, which is certain not to be
executed The vote yesterday was not a
liquor victory. The arguments which had
weight in the campaign just ooseu-the ar
gumeuts which even the liquor men were
compelled to adopt in tho documents with
which they flooded the state-recognizcd the
wisdom Of restricting the traffic of tho sa
looms. Many of them were written by men
who believe in the ultimate abolition of the
barroom. The telling point which they all
made and which carried the day, was that
it was absurd TO think that prohibition wou Id
| be enforced in such cities as philadelphia
| and Pittsburg, and that It's adoption would
| not mean the suppression of the saloon, but
the suppression of the present restrictions.
| st. Louis Giobe-Democrat: The lesson of
the Pennsylvania election, like that of the
| similar election in Massachusetts not long
| ago, is very plain and significant one.
| Prohibition was defeated by temperance
votes. The remarkable majority against the
| proposed amendment does not in any sense
| indicate sympathy with the saloons, or
| patience with the evils which they inflct
| upon society. II is safe to say that in every
| county the sentiment of opposition to dram
shops predominates, and that on a direct
| vote the verdict would be against the traffic
as matter of principle. But at the same
| time the fact is realized that prohibition
| does not prohibit; and hence comes the over
| whelming rejection of that particular plan
| of dealing with the problem. This is the ex-
PLANTATION of the result in Pennsylvania
| result which will be duplicated in every
| state where the question may hereafter be
| submitted; and those who are sincerely de-
| voted to the interests of temperance have no
| cause for regret in the matter
Brooklyn Times: There was no PARTISAN
| snip in the vote. Republican Philadelphia
gave over 1000 majority against the amend
ment, and democratic I4ehigh gave 5000 ma.
| jority on the same side. Republican Ale
| ghcny. with 10000 and democratic Berks,
| with 10000 majority, stand on common
ground OF hostility to prohibition. The
| prohibition cause is showed under beyond
| the possibility Of resurrection for many
| years to come.
Chicago Times: The defeat is signal,
| overwhelming. Never did men who builded
| so confidently as those proponents of prohi-
| bition in Pennsylvania fail so completely.
| They have hardly yet recovered from their
| amazement. The chairman of their cam
| paign committee can find nothing further to
| say than that the machinery Of both parties
was eXerted against his cause. The defeat
| was hard The manner of it was something
| to make genuine prohibitionst so far for
| get himself as to seek consolation in the flow
| ing bowl.
IolOuA SlUN JUuTHdl. lJ Is DcyOUu question
| that such vast amount of actual prohibition
under existing laws, with the prospect of a
! great deal more prohibition as there is time
| for progress in enforcing the same, would be
| to qualify the force of the arguments of the
| prohibitionsts IN favor of an unvarylng rule
of prohibition of state wide application. 1t
| is difficult to imagine any other theory to ac-
| count satisfactorily for the result of the re-
| cent election in Pennsylvania.
New York World: The significance of the
| vote prohibition in PpnnS VlVanio Ia at
| Tuesday is great and encouraging. The de-
| feat of the prohibitory amendment was not
| unexpected, but the enormity of the majority
| against it is a complete SURPRISE Such a ma
| jority can only have been cast with the aid of
| the greater part of the temperance people of
the state and the fact that they have helped
| to defeat prohibition in Pennsylvania, as they
did in Massachusetts and New Hampshire,
shows conclusvely that even among the most
uncompromising teetotalers the folly and
futility of prohibition as remedy for intem-
perance are at last clearly recognized 1t is
easy to see how great gain for rational
temperance legislation this is when we re-
fleet that in all the unsuccessful attempts
that have been made to impose Just and
reasonable restraint upon the liquor
tatves of the temperance sentiment.
We are apparently at the end of the ira
tional and fanatical prohibitory crusade, and
henceforth the teetotallers may De expected
temperance.
New York Herald: The verdict Just re-
corded by Pennsylvania is the most emphatic
popular condemnation that prohibition has
yet received in any state. Not only was the
proposition rejected, but 1t was voted down
by majority suggestive of an avalanche.
This result is one OF national significance,
and, we may be permitted to add, of national
encouragement. 1t is not rum victory.
1t is not a triumph of intemperance. On the
contrary, it was temperance victory. The
people of Pennsylvania are not Indifferent to
the evils of the liquor traffic They are as
anxious as the advocates of prohibition to
abate or lessen these evils But they wisely
see that this desirable end cannot be reached
by absolute prohibition, but only by judici-
Gus regulation.
Kansas City Star: Rhode Island has di-
rected q telling blow against the falacy of
seeking to govern by an Interchangeable law, a
matter which every community should be
permitted to regulate for itself. The plan of
prohibition by statute, which is carried out
by the local option idea, adjusts itself to the
conditions OF time place and circumstances,
and by placing the solution of the temper
ance question in the hands of the people II
insures a system of regulation which reflects
the popular will. This method is correct in
principle, and it has proved to be entirely
satisfactory in practice.
New York Sun: Tho defeat of the prohi-
btion cause in Pennsylvania on Tuesday is
much more conclusive than anybody ex-
pected. The old ship has gone TO the bottom
for certain. The first consequence is that
there will be no prohibition party and no
prohibition national ticket in the presidential
election of 1892. We mean no party and no
ticket that will be Of any consequence. The
republicans and democrats can alike lay
their plans and set up their issues without
paying special attention to the liquor ques
tion. IL is a useful thing to get the field
clear before the great battle begins.
Denver News: The result of Tuesday
vote IN the Keystone state ought to convince
tine most ineredulous that the American peo
pie are not prepared to accept prohibition AS
the best remedy for the evils of the liquor
traffic. Abandon unreasonable objections
about license and quibblings about the mean
ing of the term. A license is a restriction
and not permission. The only present
choice is between restriction and the re-
moval OF all restraint. 1t would not be wise
TO content ourselves by forbldding an evil
that we cannot prevent, but which we may
very greatly modify The public opinion of
to-day will support any restraining legisla-
ton that does not trench on personal liberty
There never was such u healthy volume of
temperance sentiment as prevails at present
IL only remains to utilize IL by unity
Detroit Free Press; The contrast between
the vote by which the prOhibitory amend
ment was adopted in Rhode Island, and that
by which II has just been repealed, is strik-
inplv snppestiya Thara were nearly thrpp