The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-12-28
IOWA AND PROHIBITION.


The views of James s. Clarkson, con-
corning prohibition in Iowa. published in
our issue OF yesterday, deserve attention.
Mr.. Clarkson makes it clear that there is
no justice in making prohibition rider"
on the back Of the Republican party
in Iowa when that party includes
at least 5000 intelligent, reputable
voters w-o are entirely hostile 70
prohibition and al its democrat
izins works. Iowa has pronounced against
prohibition in the last two gubernatori.I
elections. It was the prominent issue OF
1889, and this year it overshadowed every
other issue. giving the election TO the
Democrats in a state that gave Harrison
5000 plur-lity in ISIS.
The reasonable explanation is that Iowa,
after seven years trial Of prohibition, has
found it 8 failure, and desires different
policy substituted. The figures show
marked decline in the popular support
given prohibition. When the prohibition
amendment was submitted TO the people,
in June, 1852, asd adopted By nearly 3d.
Ooc majority, sixty-six counties voted in
its favor and twenty-three against Il.
Nineteen Of the counties which contrib
uted loops of the majority gave 1854 ma
jority for Boies, showing a change Of i5,-
$50 against prohibition. Only three coun-
ties which voted against the amendment
in iS82 gave majorities for Wheeler, the
aggregate change being 737 in favor Of
prohibition. Nine counties increased
their majorities for prohibition this year
and six other counties gave smaller major
tiles against it than they did in 1882
Prohibition has not failed in Iowa from
lack of legislation or energetic efforts 10
enforce the law which was enacted in 1854.
after the constitutional amendment had
been declared void on account of tech
nical defect. This law was made the most
severe and stringent measure that pre-
walls in any state, and q sincere attempt
was made 70 enforce it, but the open sale
OF liquor has continued TO increase and
now prevails in all the large communities
Of the state. There is one saloon for every
ass people IN the state, 4 larger number
than IN some non-prohibition states.
Crime has not decreased under prohibi-
ton, for the percentage OF prisoners 10 the
/ population is as large as in Minnesota.
larger than in Wisconsin and only slightly
/ larger than in Nebraska, in Gil Of which
states license prevails.
The Democrats control the governor and
one branch of the legislature, while the
/ Republicans have a small majority in the
other branch. The best p5licy for Iowa
would be 10 repeal the prohibito-y law,
and substitute in is place high license and
! local option, which would give every
county the opportunity 70 adopt whatever
the Local sentiment authorizes and - will
ing TO sustain, as Is done in Massachusetts,.
Minnesota established high license and re-
mains a staunch Republican state. and
, her prohibitjonists. who in 1855 cast 1900
votes for governor. pol.ed only 5000 in
IS9j. In Minnesota the license for
towns Of ten thousand and upwards Of.
Is $l,000, and towns Of less population
have q license Of 500. High license has
not only enriched the towns, but reduced
the number OF saloons and improved The
morals OF the people. 81. Paul has rev
enue OF $4,000 from her $50 saloons.
which formerly numbered 200. Sioux
City under the prohihitory law Of Iowa.
has go aloons ard no revenuei St. PaU,'s
population is 10000; Sioux City's popula.
ton IS 1900 Towa's Republican major
ity, formerly $1,000, was only $500 in IS90.
The president Of the Pharmaceutical As
ISOLATION declared IN convention, in 1Ss6.
that nine-ten:hs Of the families il Iowa
used liquors more or less. At Marshall
town, IN June. 1855. the applications for
liquor "to lie used incidentally" were
2,5lSl
In Pennsylvania, IL the last year OF low
license, 1857. with 5.77S saloons, the num-
Der Of commitments 10 the Philadelphia
county prison for intoxication was :, 2l.
In ISIS, with I.746 saloons, the commit
ments we're I 3-3. In 1890. with 2oa2 sa-
looms, the commitments rose 10 SOS. In
iSeI new reduction in the number OF
| licenses 10 ], 79l brought the commitments
to $50
In Massachusetts, the Springfield Repcb-
licaa sestiaes that q very large contingent
Of those engaged IN the liquor business
vote Tor local prohibition, because they
/ consider that the chances ofdoiug = profit
able business N the sale Of liquor viii be
enhanced ~ vote for local prohibition
/ They understand that such verdict drives
! the traffic into semblaDcs OF hiding, but
/ in effect distributes it more widely ever
/ the city.
Prohibition, wherever We find il, is fail
ure; n Georgia II was defeated after two
years trial, and both Texas and Tennes-
see gave decisive maiogitjes against pro-
hiolto-y constitutional amendments. GOV
enor TiL-msa, OF South Carolina. in his re-
eent message sad that prohibition was
neither practicable nos desirable. The ex-