The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1892-09-09
HURTING BUSINESS.


HURTING BUSINESS.
One of the most common allegations
made with view of defeating Sheriff
Cram is that his enforcement of the law
has hurt business. Now even if this
were true it would be no argument
against Mr. Grams reelection. 1t might
be an argument for the repeal of the pro-
hibitory law, and in that connection
might be entitled to consideration, but
it is worthless. There is but one honest
course which an executive officer can
pursue and that is to enforce all the laws,
the execution of which devolves upon
him, as vigorously and persistently as he
can. An officer who does any less
is guilty of dereliction of duty. 1t
is not for him to ask whether the law is
a good one or bad one, whether it's en-
forcement will help or hurt business.
His duty is to enforce it regardless of
consequences. If an executive officer
can sit in judgment on the prohibitory
law, he can just as consistently do the
same with every other law. If he can
usurp the functions of the legislature in
one case he can in all others. Alanifestly
if sheriffs and other executive officers
are to be allowed to determine what
laws shall be enforced and what
neglected they will become prac-
teal dictators overriding the legislature
and the people. The man who votes
against Sheriff Cram because he has hurt
business by doing his duty is deliberate
ly voting to lower the standard Of official
responsibility. No man who has the
welfare of the community at heart can
afford to do that No man who has his
own welfare as member of the commu-
nifty at heart can afford to do that.
But we claim that the allegation that
the enforcement of the prohibitory
liquor law hurts businesss-that is to say
reputable business-is nonsense. The
purpose of legitimate business is to
supply the legitimate wants of the COM
munity. We do not mean to restrict the
meaning of wants to necessities. Any
thing that contributes to the happiness
of man we intend to include by the word
wants. To promote business there must
be wants and there must also be the
means of supplying them. Now every
cent of money a man spends for the
t1tf,,rrc ha yo1,t tbof ic
things that do not promote his happiness
or welfare, diminishes by so much the
amount he has to spend for the things
that legitimate business supplies. If a
man spends SO or 81 Of his weeks wages
for liquor he has So or 81 less to spend in
dry goods and clothing and boots and
shoes; he has So or 81 less to spend in
entertainments; and has So or 81 less for
travel, for books, for furniture, for
carpets and manifold other things which
it is the purpose of legitimate business to
supply. That is, the rumseller gets So or
Sd which otherwise the man engaged
in legitimate business would have
received. Anything that tends to dim
inish the amount of money spent for
liquor must necessarily tend to increase
the amount of money spent for other
things. Suppose the tax rate in this
town should be doubled, what effect
would that have upon legitimate bust
ness? Manifestly it would injure it.
The people having had to pay double the
usual amount in taxes would have to
economic in their purchases. They
would buy less, because they would have
less money to buy with. Now expendi-
ture ola mans revenue for liquor reduces
it just as effectively as its expenditure
for taxes, and reduces the remainder
that he has to spend in the stores just as
effectively.
1t is curious fact that when men get
to discussing the matter of liquor selling
and its effects they violate all the canons
of common sense. If man should set
up big gambling saloon on Congress
street and inveigle into it hundreds of
people and deprive them of their money
every business man in the city would
recognize Immediately that the estab-
lishment was hurting legitimate bust
ness, and would call for it's suppression
on that ground as well as because of it's
immortality. But if a man starts rum
shop which does precisely the same
thing, an cutlery goes up when it is sup
pressed that business has been hurt.
Some of these business men exhibit the
same perversity when discussing the
comparative effect in diminishing the
sale of liquor of prohibition and license.
If you would ask them which would do the
larger business, an attractive dry goods
store or eating house ON Congress street,
or dark and dirty dry goods store or
eating house in an out of the way alley,
they would accuse you of insulting their
intelligence. Yet they will deliberately
argue that open and attractive drinking
houses, such as exist under license, will
tend to the restraint of drinking and
drunkenness.