The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1891-09-19
0MEN 10 MEMO.
EDITOR BULLETIN -

over 200, 1000 were for drunkenness
and crimes growing out Of it, lie
suggests that ''littIe bird" told me.
Those figures were compiled from
the Reports OF the New York Police
Department for the years 1887 80.
If Memo had read the next para
graphs of my article he would have
seen that it was not for two but four
years that l gave figures. He could
not see it, Memo suggests that pro-
hibltionsts are largely the cause of
the vice and crime in New York
City. He gives no figures, so that
his mere bald assertion amounts to
nothing The parts of the sermon
of the Rev. De Costa quoted by
Memo have nothing to do with this
question of prohibition, Mr.. Edi-
tor, | am not discussing religion with
Memo, nor do intend to do so. We
are writing about prohibition and
the liquor traffic." Of which Memo
seems to need reminding very often.
| may say in passing, however, that
the sermon quoted by Memo never
even suggests that the christianity or
"churchianity" Gas Memo calls it)
of the Christians of New York was
responsible for the state he describes,
viz, ''vice is all about us, and il
rankles with every description Of
fostering greed" Memo seems to
be unable to distinguish between
those who make or credte this
"vice" and debauchery, and those
who, as the sermon says, leave such
neighborhoods and move uptown.
The liquor traffic makes vice, and
/ when Memo thinks a moment he will
hardly blame man with a family of
children for removing them from a
neighborhood filed with drunken
men and women, thieves, gamblers
and blacklegs. If Memo be a mar
] ried man he probably would be one
/ of the very first to take his family
out of such place on the double
quick. But this is aside from the
point. Who is to blame for the vice
and crime of New York City, Memo
says, 'prohibitionists largely helped
to swell the tide" He gave no
figures for the good reason that he
can't do it. If Memo wants to know
who causes it let him consult the re-
ports of the Police Department. In
1888 there were 1909 saloons in New
York City. Taking the census of
1890 as the basis OF population, that
/ is one saloon for every 1914 inhabit-
ants. In the same year { 1889 there
were as, ia arrests for drunkenness
and crimes due to drink in New York
City. Who was responsible, Memo
In 1890, according to the New York
Boaru of Trade, 2l,l40, 822 gallons
of wines and spirits were imported
into New York Guy. Don't you
think, Memo, that the Swelling of
the tide" of vice is on the wrong
side of the fence for the liquor men
in a city where 50 much whiskey,
etc, is drunk that it can support one
saloon for every 1914 of its inhabit-
ants? Better leave figures alone,
Memo, they show up too much of the
work Of the liquor business to suit
you.
Now as to the cause of the poverty
and pauperism Of New York City.
In 1880 the Commissioners of Cor.
rection and Charity for New York
said in their report;
Many reasons for this painful
and rapidly increasing pauperlsm
among the people may be assigned,
but that which takes precedence
above and beyond all others is the
curse of intemperance." In his arti-
Gle of September 18th, Memo pro.
fesses to be unable to find any stats.
tics in my replies. "None so bIind
as those who Donts ee." He (Nemo)
asks "what do they amount to!
just enough, Memo, that you havrn't
attacked them.
No wonder, Mr.. Editor, that Ne
mo couldn't see the statistics in my
articles, he couldn't see his OWL
without mixing them. In the Bull
LETIN of July 18th he said that there
were only 28,000 prohibitionists ii
Ohio in total vote of about 700.
600. On September 17lh, Memo
says that there were 100000 prohi
bitionists in Ohio at the same time
that he referred to in his article o.
July 29th. 1t is not Typographical
error, either, for he repeats it three
times. Memo calls his statistics
"solid, unanswerable government
statistics" | propose to show the
readers of the BULLETIN and Memo
if he can see it, that he (Nemo) die
not know what he was writing about
If Memo chooses the figures he gave
on July 29th, viz, $4,000 prohibi
tionists in Ohio, then wish to point
out the fact that 1928, 1879 votes wert
cast for prohibition at that election
In other words Memo made Il mistake
of nearly 100000 votes. If Memo
takes the figures given by him Sep
TENDER l7th, he only gets himself ii
deeper. In the first place, Memo
there was only one election. "Tht
fall elections didn't roll round, ex
cept in your Imagination. lor
thought there were TWO elections
when there was only one. The pro
hibition amendment was submitted
at the election apart from party