Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-08-16
of our title-hunting, prince-loving
American bellies.
THE DRINKER PAYS THE FREIGHT.


Perhaps solution OF the whisky
question has been arrived at by Kan
sas City statesman, whose invention
entities him to the credit OF statesman
ship, though that quality has never
been recognized in him so as to adj
vance him beyond the humble position
OF city alderman. His design is set
forth in a bill, OF which this is copy {:
Section |. 1t shall not be lawful for any
person or persons to purchase or use any
intoxicating liquors in Kansas City as
beverageor other than for meGicinalpurpOses
without having first paid license to said
Kansas City and obtained license from
said Kansas City for said purpose.
Sec. .. The city auditor shall issue, on
application. licenses as provided in section
! Of this ordinance upon the payment OF the
following sums, to-wit:
To persons who drink beer exclusively,
$50 per year.
To persons who drink beer and wines lex
Guiding champagne), 50 per year.
To persons who drink beer, wine and
whisky, $50 per year
To persons who drink beer, wine, whisky
and champage, $50 per year.
Said licenses shall be payable on January
l, 1882. and this ordinance shall be in force
and effect from that date. Applicants for
licenses, as provided IN this ordinance, if
married, shall be required to have their APP
plication countersigned by the person TO
whom married.
Sec. 3. Any person who shall violate the
provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon cOnyic-
ton thereof shall he fined for the first Of
Tense, -; for the second offense, $40, and
for Il third offense, SO.
Why, indeed, should not the drinker
pay for the pleasure he is supposed to
derive from drinking, instead OF max
ing the seller pay for the privilege of
selling to him the means Of that pleas
ure? The STEADY drinker would save
money by it, for the whisky seller, be-
ing relieved Of the heavy expense OF
his license charge, could reduce drinks
to 10 cents apiece, or two for 10 cents.
It would bear hard on the light tippler
however, and the beer drinkcr, for
they would not save enough to pay for
their license. and they would be com
PEELED, for economy's sake. to cut off
their tipple altogether, or go to drink
ing hard enough to save the money
their license had cost.
One defect we can see in the con-
struction of this bill. How shall we
reach the man who has private bottle
in his closet? And as great many
drinkers will adopt this means OF evad-
ing their drink tax, it Will become a
very serious question to consider.
Another thing that is hard to get
around is the clause requiring mans
wife to sign his application for a
license. What if she is refractory,
how will he deal with her? And will
not this have very bad effect in dis
c0uraging matrimony? As long as
young man knows that his wife has it
in her power to cut off his accustomed
refreshments he will think many times
before putting himself in position
where he is thus to be handicapped.
Taking it all in all. we fear that this
example of Kansas City craftsmanship,
while it has commendable features, is
yet open to objections that will not
make it Immediately acceptable to the
public.