Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-09-12
SATURDAY. SEPTEMBER IL. 1891.
The Prohioitionists Of Massachusetts.

Inasmuch as the Democratic party as q
party is composed largely Of strict con-
structionists and has always opposed IN
necessary governmental interference with
the social habits of the people. or, as The
phrase is. have opposed sumptuary laws"
that party has not in any State usually lost
by the prohibition movement as much az
the Republican party. Massachusetts,
generally leads the way in all these re
FORMS" or efforts TO compel people to re-
nounce their bad habits; and so we read
with interest the report OF the proceedings
on Wednesday last of the Prohibition Con-
vention Of that State.
We have often wondered why tho Pro-
hibitionists wasted SO much sympathy
upon the most guilty party-that is, tho
drunkards themselves-and have 50 many
hard words for the liquor-sellers. Far be
il from US to champion the cause OF the
latter. We have no intention 10 do so.
But surely we NAV say without offence to
ANYBODY that as the mere fact that saloons
nre required to keep their doors standing
wide open has in some places, If not
wherever tried. proved to be temperance
measure. il NAV reasonably be concluded
that to arrest and punish by fine or i'm
pr,sonment every man found il the
streets under the influence of any intOxi-
eating beverage would probably prove TO
be the most efficient aid to the cause OF
teetotalsm which has ever been tried.
At any rate We see no mention in tho
resolutions adopted by the Massachusetts,
~, Of In
measure to which we have alluded. We
LET the fact pass withou, comment.
We have noticed. however. in the reports
Of the proceedings of several prohibition
State conventions accommodation IN
regard TO the liquor traffic which may bear
fruit some day. We alludc 20 the declara-
ton that inasmuch as the desire for gam
is the motive-power Of the drink traffic,
all the liquor sold for mechanical, medi-
cinal, and" technical purposes ought to
be sold by agents Of the State. This de-
claraton would be still more practical IT
it favored the policy Of requiring all
liquors sold as beverage TO be sold by
agents Of the State. In old times our fore
fathers in England adopted this policy.
They sold what were called mo
nopOlies" that is. persons paid the
Government for the privilege Of having
the control Of the sale OF all Of certain ar
ticles. These monopolists" kept vigi-
liant watch upon ell clandestine competi-
tors, and thus put great deal OF money
In their purses They were much more
successful than we were here IN Virginia
when we undertook TO effect a revenue for
the State by the aid Of the MoFTIIT register.
Nevertheless, the law taking the sale OF
oil Intoxicating beverages under the pro-
lection and control of the State would If
properly enforced yield revenue enough
10 pay the expenses Of any State in the
Union. We suppose that the reason why
the prohbltionsts do not recommend the
passage of such a law is that they detest
the iauor traffic to such an extent that
they cannot consent to partakc in any de-
gree Of the responsibility for the sale of
intoxicating beverages. But II the traffic
cannot possibly be stopped-as experience
seems TO prove-t then it would seem not
unwise for the opponents OF the drink
habit and the drink-traiiic TO resort TO the
next best measure to prohibition. Tho
Massachusetts prohibitionists have taken
this practical view of the matter and de-
clared in favor Of divesting the dealer Of
all pecuniary interest IN the intoxicating
beverages which he sells. Werepeat. this
recommendation may yield fruit some day.