The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1889-06-19
MisteIIanp.
The Outlook for High License.

liquors is S5O0 or more IN eight
states-Arkansas Illinois, Massachu-
sets, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska and Pennsylvania-and in
three territories, which are about to be-
come states-Dakota, Montana and
Washington. Nebraska adopted the
system in 1881; Arkansas, Illinois and
Missouri in 1888; Massachusetts, in
1888, and the other six common
wealths in 1887. Before 1881 fee of
$500 or more was unknown. In 1883
New Jersey also made a marked in
crease in the scale of its license fees,
and in 1887 the excise commissioners
of the city of New York raised the
amount materially under the existing
law. All these changes have given
satisfaction to temperance people.
Only in Nebraska and Z, nnsylvania is
further change to prohibition thought
of, and in the latter it will doubtless be
defeated. The rapid advance of the
principle of high license, as shown by
this resume, certainly gives promise of
its general acceptance. Prohibition
has no such record. 1t was tried in
Maine in 1851, and, with the exception
of the years 1855 and 1857, has pre-
NdllCu lnClC CNCl SluCCs CIlDOub las
been prohibition state since 1852, and
New Hampshire passed a prohibition
law in 1865. The experience of these
states evidently failed to encourage
others to follow in their footsteps.
From 1856 to 1880 no state adopted
prohibition law and preserved it I'M
repealed. In 1880 Kansas placed pro-
hibition in its constitution. Iowa
enacted prohibitory statute in 1884.
Rhode Island, in 1886, voted constitu-
tional prohibition, but so unsatisfactory
has the result been that the legislature
has already resolved to submit the
question again to the electors. In
April last the people of Massachusetts
rejected similar amendment by ma
| jority of over A 900. Pennsylvania is
about to cast its vote on the question, and
the overwhelming defeat of prohibition
is expected. 1t is to be noted that both
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have
within two years put high license into
operation. The state of New York
affords fair example of the respective
strength of prohibition and high license
in community having large urban
population. The prohibition party has
been working hard here for six or eight
years, and yet, in 1887, it polled only
Al $50 votes, and in 1888 there was a
large falling off. High license was not
seriously pushed until 1887. The re-
publican party became at once COM
mitted to it, and in the election of 1888 it
was the state issue. The result was that
high license, in the person of Mr.. War
ner Miller, received 63l 1893 votes, and
the democratic candidate received only
1911 more. The prohibition vote for
governor was only 30,215, or 229 per
centum of the entire vote cast. We may
remark, in passing, that the lesson to be
derived from the temperance contest in
New York is full of encouragement for
the opponents of the saloon in all parts
of the Union. Ten years ago-we
might almost say five years ago-no
politician in this state would have dared
to say one word against the rum power.
To-day the politicians of one great
party are arrayed in open hostility to
it. This great change has in no way
weakened the republicans. The result
of the recent election for governor does
not differ substantially from that OF
the election three years before, when
Mr.. Hill was first chosen, and in that
campaign the liquor question was not
an issue. In the legislature the repub.
licans have actually made gains
Furthermore, the stand taken by the
republicans last year did not proven
them from carrying the state for the
national ticket. Then, again, the popu.
lar vote was against the saloon, the re-
publican and prohibition votes together
being in the majority. In the demo-
cratic ranks there were doubtless many
who are enemies of the whskey power,
but who hesitated to sever their party
ties. Mr.. Miller, after careful canvass
of the state, believed that three-fourths
Of the voters were at heart in favor of
high license. But to carry such state
as New York, to rout the saloon in its
stronghold it is manifestly desirable
for its opponents to unite. Unite
upon what" do you ask? Why, upon
that course which the vast majority OF
anti-saloon people agree upon. This
is question of politics, and the essence
of politics is compromise. The ma.
iority must rule. But we must not
compromise with sin! Well, in the
first place the government has nothing
to do with sin. Its attention is con.
fined to crimes and misdemeanors. l
am as good a judge of sin as you are,
and for me it is no sin to drink glass
of wine if feel so disposed. Who is
to Judge between us in matters of public
policy? The majority of our fellow-citi
zens and the law of the land. Granting,
then, that this is matter of policy and
not of principle, and that we should
compromise as reasonable citizens of q
democracy, it is plainly impossible tc
compromise on an extreme, either pro
hibition or free whiskey, but high Ii.
cense holds the underground and is a
fair basis for a general settlement
On this principle of compromise the
body of temperance voters should
come to an understanding among
themselves. The majority indeed have
a right to ask the minority to go with
them, but in New York the high IL
cense majority, great as it is, is ready
to compromise with the prohibition
minority. We are prepared to en-
brace prohibition by counties and towns
known as local option, leaving high
Eoo,eo Gov ,Nlacac xuhara tho