Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1891-02-19
IS PROHIBITION PROFITABLE
A Fargo Taxpayer and YanktOn
Citizen Say it Certainly
Is not.
Licensed Saloons Preferred to
the HOle-in-the-W Wall
Kind,
Meeting of State :Superintend-
cnts to Plan Future Insti-
tlItc Work.
The Other Side of The case.

The Other Side OF The case.
The prohibitionists at Fargo held
meeting Sunday night at which there was
singing, praying and few addresses
mostly by ministers. The object was to
work up an anti.resubmission sentiment
and to publicly regret the passage of that
bill. Speaking of one of the extremely
practical facts that confronts the proper
ty owners at Fargo, in connection with
prohibition, taxpayer is quoted as fol-
lows in the Argus:
learn from the city treasurer that
when prohibition went into effect the
city only had to raise $1,000 year in
taxes. Now we must raise seven times
that. or S2l,OOO to run the government in
the most economical way. This is the
difference between high license and pro-
hlbition in Fargo. 1t seems to me that
the country at large ought to bear good
part OF the expense of police salaries and
road and bridge funds. The county fur
nishes more than half the work for the
police; almost all those who get drunk
are from the prohibition districts in the
country, and as they won't let US run
our business and raise our needful reve-
nue. in our own way, they should help to
bear the extra expense for which their
votes are responsible.
In South Dakota prohibition has been
in effect longer than in this sta te, and
under the same ironclad law. The law
has not been enforced in the cities and
large towns, although if anything there
is a generally greater sentiment for up
holding 1t than in North Dakota. AS a
rule the tax-paying, responsible citizens.
or large majority OF them, prefer the
licensed saloon to the hole-in-the-wall,
and want to keep the money at home in
stead OF sen ding 1t abroad. The follow
ing IS recent communication of citi-
zen of this kind to the Yankton Press
and Dakotian, and the conditions de-
scribed there are identically similar to
those obtaining in cities like jamestown,
Bismarck, Fargo, Grand Forks and towns
Of much less population. The reference
to the irresponsible reformers may or
may not be pertinent. The article in
question is:
We have a prohibition law in South
Dakota. In organizing new state all
classes Of people should be invited to as
sist in developing the state, no matter
what their appetites are in regard to
suInptuary matters. Our law practically
excludes certain classes who do not re-
gard the drinking of beer as deadly
sin. In this country tie law is not sus-
tanned by public sentiment. Nine-tenths
of our people are III favor of license and
opposed to holes-in-the-wall. With
such an array of sentiment against
the law how can it be enforced? Is
1t not infinitely better to have
revenue from the sale at home with
our breweries running than to have at
least $4,000 each week sent TO Nebraska,
Illinois, Minnesota. Ohio, Kentucky.
Pennsylvania and other states for orig
inal packages? The individual who is
fond of stimulants will use them if he
has money, hence it follows that either
his money must be taken from him or
his stomach, in order TO stop him from
drinking. The taxpayers and business
men of 1ankcon are interested in keep
ing onr wealth at home, and prefer a
revenue and open saloons to holes in the
wall and original packages pur-
chased in licensed states. Indepen-
dent of the prohibition law, we nave
always had a stringent liquor law. which
our canting moralists never tried to en-
force. Let Brother Fielder commence
his reformation in Sioux City or some
other prohibition town in some os the
older prohibition states. He cannot get
our Iankton county people to subscribe
to his peculiar views. He has lost sight
of Christ and sees only cold water. and
is afflicted with moral insanity at the
sight of lager beer. CITIZEN.