The Portland daily press., 1890-03-19
Prohibition and License.

1t cannot be denied that prohibition has
failed to do what its inventors predicted it
would, namely, suppress all the rum shops
and Danish drunkenness. Judged by the
test OF complete suppression of either Of
these evils, 1t is not entitled to be pro-
nounced success. If, therefore, anybody
should invent some lawful process which
gave fair promise of accomplishing what
prohibition has failed to do, or of accom-
plishing it more nearly, it would be the sen.
sible thing to abandon prohibition and
adopt 1t. But it would be foolish to for
sake prohibition for something which has all
the weak points of prohibition and lacks
some of its strong points. Now the great
objection to the proposition, which our cor
respondent makes in another column, to SUBJ
slltute license for the present method of re-
stralning the liquor traffic is that it gives no
fair promise that the exchange will be an
improvement. The measure of success of
law tor the promotion of temperance-and
this is the end all laws, whether prohibitory
or license, have in yiew-is the strength of
its restraining force upon the drinker The
closing OF all rumshops, or the reduction in
their number, is but means to an end. Not
being able to say directly that men shall not
drink intoxicating liquor, the law has sought
to say so indirectly by providing that men
shall not sell Intoxicating liquor. But no
law has yet been sufficient to accomplish this
task And it is doubtless inevitable that
while the human appetite for alcoholic
drinks is as strong as now men will be forth
coming to take the risk, whatever it may be,
of pandering to it. But the character of the
saloons, as well as their number, has direct
-l9nuence upon the amount of drinking.
Five hGnHaaIed rumshops in the city of Port
land, located in dSSgSkk alleys and out of the
way places, dirty and repuisfiygas-in appear
ance, would do much less mischief thar
a hundred well lighted, well fur
nished and attractive drinking resorts.
The tendency of a prohibitory law, ad-
hitting for the present that it does not
reduce the number of saloons, is to convert
them into resorts of the former de-
scription, while the tendency Of license is to
build up the resort of the latter kind.
From this point of view, therefore, change
from prohibition to license would not be pro
motive of temperance.
But we are by no means ready to admit that
license would.reduce the number Of saloons.
Under that system there would be certain
number of saloons protected by the State !;
how many would, perhaps, be fixed by the
law crit might be left to the discretion of
ths licensing board. Theoretically there
would be no rum shops besides them, but in
practlce, we imagine, there would be found
10 Dc great number, for it would not be
much easier to enforce prohibition thor
oughly under these circumstances than nm
der existing ones. The element that would
OBJECT TO llcense-and it would be a large
and influential one-would be likely n ba
quite as lukewarm toward the enlargement
OF that law, and quite as ready to throw
trlgs In its way, as the element that does not
believe in prohibition is now to obstrnct tho
prohibitory law. The officers would have
public sentiment opposed to the law to
contend against, quite as strong as the
public sentiment that exists against the pres
ent law.
Neither would license law have any ten
dency to take the saloon out of politics or
destroy the political power of the saloon.
The licensing board would be continually
affected by influences set in motion by the
saloon keepers and their henchmen, and
every saloon keeper would seek to build up
a political machine sand become a political
boss in order to make It dangerous for the
licensing board to ignore him.