The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1891-08-07
OMEE'S COMPLIMENTS TO MEMO.

Giles, for whoever Memo may be, he
evidently is above the level of many
who think that the only reply to be
given to prohibltionist is-for lack
of anything else-abuse.
Memo shows rare good judgment
also in avoiding remarks upon the
liquor traffic and Its effects as seen
in the Hawaiian Islands, and gives
us an article clipped from an old
Ohio paper, called The Liberal.
The editor, or writer of the Article
in The Liberal, takes as the basis of
his figures the population of Ohio as
given in the census Of 1880. He
then proceeds to say, sat the last
election"-date not given-''about
700, 900 votes were cast. OF these
200, 900 were foreigners, under all
circumstances opposed to prohibit
tion," whose votes were of course
anti prohibition, and 472 900 Ameri-
an.born citizens whose votes were
also anti-prohibition, while the pro.
hibilion fanatics and impracticals
only polled $4,000 votes. He then
sums it up with ''this proves that
not only the hated foreigners but
our own to the manor born citizens
are opposed to fanaticisms and i'm
probabilities" - meaning thereby
prohibition.
That, Mr.. Editor, is a fair state
ment, l think, of the first part of
Nemo's article. To one unacquaint.
ed with the political situation in
Ohio the evident intention of the
article is to make him believe that
there are only few prohibitionists
in Ohio, and that the vast body of
intelligent electors (472 ,000) are
totally opposed. At the election of
which the editor speaks the 672, 900
votes were not anti-prohibltion votes.
They were cast for Republican and
Democratic candidates, who are care
full to avoid any mention, even, OF
prohibition unless they know they
have sure thing.
The $4,000 votes were cast for
prohibition candidates, it is true, but
no one knew better than the editor of
The Liberal! that that does not
represent the total prohibition vote
OF Ohio. The only way that a fair
test can be made is when prohibition
comes up as an issue by itself, un-
mixed with and untrammeled by
other issues.
The editor of The Liberal knew
when he was penning the article quoted
by Memo that in the election of
which he speaks such was not tn case.
We have the results of the different
elections, so that it makes no differ.
ence to which one he refers as 1.-THE
last" Neither prohibition as against
the old anti-license clause of the
Ohio constitution, nor prohibition as
against license was voted upon at
that election. Yet the evident inten-
ton of the article quoted by Memo is
to make people believe that it was a
fair test vote, and that the people of
Ohio repudiate prohibition as being
the theory of impractical fanatics.
The facts of the case are easily as
certained. Ohio has in its constitu-
ton the following: mo license to
traffic in Intoxicating liquors shall
hereafter be granted in this State,
but the General Assembly may by
law provide against evils resulting
therefrom." After "A time the liquor
men found this clause very inconven-
lent. In 1874, they had, through
their influence with the great politl-
cal parties, constitutional amend
ment, permitting licenses, submitted
to vote of the people of Ohio. The
result was that Up 1852 votes were
cast for the license amendment and
1888 against-majority against
over 1000. Beaten at the polls, the
liquor men then began to try to find
some way of multiplying the hated ar
ticle. The machine politicians Of
both parties were only too willing to
aid, in exchange for The liquor vote.
The result was the passing of the
tax laws which practically set
aside the anti-Iicense clause of the
In 1883 both Prohibitionists and
liquor men agreed to have two Con-
,titutionaI amendments submitted to
he people. This was done. They
'ead as follows:
PROHIBITION AMENDMENT. 1.-The
manufacture of and the traffic in in
,oxicatiDg liquors to be used as a
beverage are forever prohibited, and
he General Assembly shall provide
BY law for the enforcement of this
LICENSE AMENDMENT "The Cen
eral Assembly shall regulate the
traffic in intoxicating liquors so as to
provide against evils resulting there
from, and Its power to levy taxes or
assessments thereon is not limited by
my provisions of the Constitution"
These two amendments were voted
upon. Memo will not be able to
deny that the test was fair one,
1928, 1879 men of Ohio voted for the
amendment and only
'4O,975 against it. Majority for
82,214; 99,S49 voted for
license and 1872, III against major
tv aUainst Eoanea % 0eS Aooord