The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1891-10-02
kEM0's COMPLIMENTS 10 OMEN.

EDITOR BULLETIN -
In regard to Omen's Claim that
1928, 1879 votes were cast for prohibl-
ton in 1888, It was done not as |
supposed by a combination Of Re-
publican and prohibition votes, but
was accomplished by more appro-
pirate and natural one, combna-
ton of prohbitionists and liquor
dealers arm-in-arm voting together.
hope Omen will give me credit for
acknowledging my mistake; also |
hope he Will Try and stop some OF hi,
special pleadings in this prohibition
controversy, as they put one too
much in mind OF man who has
donned the pantalettes The posi-
ton ! have taken on this subject Of
| prohibition is not to bolster up the
aloon-keeper, who is or ought to be
able to bolster up himself But more
for the principle of the personal
rights OF man; and TO try and lead
Omen back into the path of truth and
righteousness which, from the tone
and temper of his late writings, |
fear he has sadly strayed from.
Read the following, Omen, and be
convinced Of the vote in Ohio. |
give it rerbatina ct llteratim.:
r. In the Cincinnati Commercial
Gazette of March 18th, Mr.. Murat
Halstead reviews the attack of the
New York Voice on President Harri-
son apropos of his appointment of
Charles Foster, whom the Voice ac-
cuses of sympathy with the brewers,
because, as Halstead puts it, he did
not regard brewer as criminal,
and Of having defeated the Constitu-
tonal Prohibition Amendment in
1888. Mr.. llalstead gives so inter
esting piece of Ohio Prohibition
history that we venture to reprint
part of his letter which deserves the
careful consideration of all friends of
the cause of true and genuine tenn
perance. BY way of introduction
Mr.. Halstead says; The New York
Voice of last week contains an article
that will serve as sample of the
strange intolerance and unceasing
impracticability Of the politicians
who are striving to force the people
of the United States to give their
exclusive attention to liquor legisla-
ton, and to carry it on according to
the pattern they have provided, and
then makes the following abstract of
the Voices charge against Foster:
The Voice says: when Foster
became Governor in 1879 he found
the old Adair law on the statute
books prohibiting the sale of liquor
for consumption on the premises,
and an ant-license clause 10 the CON
stitution. Although the Adar law
was not generally enforced, the pro-
hibition sentiment Of Ohio was such
that a very little effort on the part
of her Executive would have made
it strictly prohibition State" 10
this charge Mr.. Halstead replies as
follows, and he certainly knows
whereof he speaks: There was
not and is not in Ohio the
elements to make her a prohi-
bition State. Ii Foster had at
tempted that he would have turned
the State over to the Democratic
party with absolute certainty, and |
we know what sort of prohibitionists
Democrats are. The anti-lcense |
clause in the Constitution was placed
in it by the combined prohibition
and saloon vote, and it worked the
saloon way, giving nearly forty year,
of free trade in liquor in the State.
As for the Adair law, there was no
more thou"ht OF enforcing it than of
executing the Connecticut laws Of
century ago. The Voice proceeds to
give a wickedly false statement of
the cause of liquor legislation III
Ohio under the influence of Foster
and Foraker and others, opening
Win tuio. 1HotCdu VI tlilS GuUrG.
however, one of Fosters first acts
was to secure the passage of the
Pond law in 1882, recognizing the
legality of the saloons by subjecting
them to tax" This was sheer
and shabby perversion. The exist
ence Of the saloon was recognized
by placing on it a special tax.
The cranks and the saloonists were.
as usual, against this measure, which
was warranted by the constitutional
that the evils of hquor sell
ing might he provided against.
There was contention that to tax
saloon was to license it, and was
under the anti-license
clause, unconstitutional, but the Su-
preme Court Of the State finally
out that silly bubble in
spite of the combined and, for DO
itical purposes, affiliated lunatic
md saloonatic.
" 'Of these laws the Voice says:
'The Scott law was declared uncon-
titntional by Democratic Supreme
Court June II, 1884, but it was
ollowed by the enactment of the
present Dow law, which went into
operation in 1886 and is sustained
~ a Republican Supreme Court"