The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-03-26
SEATTLE. SATURDAY, MARCH go.
THE PATEKNALIsM OF PRoHI-
BTTION.

The Iowa Senate passed high license
and local option measure the other day;
but the House rejected it through the
votes of Republicans pledged to prohibit
ton. Under this bill in every county
where two-fifths of the voters petition for
1t special election must be held to de-
termine whether liquors can be manufac-
tured and sold in that county. If a ma
iority of the votes cast is in favor Of it,
then licenses are to be granted to persons
of approved character whose petitions are
signed by majority OF the property
owners and residents on each side of the
street for distance of 200 feet each way
from the location Of the proposed saloon,
if in city, or by thirty freeholders if in
the country. The fee must be at least
$500, and city or town councils and boards
of supervisors can add to this sum as
much as they please. Other provisions
relate to the time saloon can be kept
open, the giving of bond of S. 900 by the
saloon-keeper, restrictions as to selling to
minors and habitual drunkards, and the
responsibility of the saloon keeper for
damage done by any person to whom he
has sold liquor.
This conservative, well-guarded measure
was rejected, despite the fact that such
legislation has shown better fruits in
shape of law, order and sobriety in the
cities and large towns of rural Massachu-
sets than the cities and large towns of Iowa
enjoy under prohibition. This bill re-
jected by the Prohibition members of the
Iowa lower house is almost identical with
the excise bill now before the New York
Senate, which was drawn by Judge Ar
noux, Of New York city, who is chairman
of the legislative committee of the Church
Temperance Society and practical tenn
perance man.
A correspondent writes US arguing that
''if the general government had national
ICED prohibition in Iowa by refusing to
license business that the people had
branded as infamous" all would be well
with prohibition IN Iowa today. This is
as wild and absurd q speculation as 'if
your uncle had been your aunt" The
trouble with this postulate is that it is
impracticable; your uncle never was your
aunt, is not your aunt, never will be,
never could be your aunt under the pres
emit economy of nature. So the national
government cannot in defiance of the
popular will refuse to license traffic
which the whole world treats as a legiti-
mate business, and nine-tenths of the
states of our Union refuse to prohibit and
always license.
The public in free country are sure to
have their own way, and the public in the
United States demand that the liquor bus
mess be carried on. The problem of legs-
lation is to determine how and how far the
liquor traffic shall be restrained and regu-
lated so as to minimize the unquestionable
evils of Incorporate drinking. No human
law can extirpate or largely abate the
liquor traffic. Legislation and police regu-
lation can only restrain the manifestations
Of the vice of intemperance SO far as they
interfere with general order, with public
decency and propriety.
OF course, if prohibition Is rejected and
The liquor traffic recognized as legitimate
BY nine-tenths of the states it is absurd TO
talk about Matchmaking prohibition by
refusing federal licenses for the sale of
liquor. In Vermont, prohibition state
the other day a man was tried for selling
liquor in defiance of the prohibitory law
and without a federal license. If prohi-
bition amendment TO the constitution was
voted by congress tomorrow the refusal of
twelve states TO ratify il would defeat it.
OF course constitutional prohibition rests
on the baseless fabric of visionary reform,
and of course no government on earth
would be authorized by congress to deny
O license to a traffic that nine-tenths of
states and the whole civilized world treated
as legitimate business.
The whole principle of prohibitory legis-
lstion in the matter of alcohol and to-
bacco is = failure in practice. 1t is dis
elimination against q particular industry
on the plea that the products of that in
dustry are, when used TO excess, detri-
mental to the health. The plea of moral
benefit is no justification of discriminating
legislation which is destructive TO liberty.
This plea would justify the prohibition of
coffee, enacted under Charles the Second.
she prescribing of dress. the enactment of
0 federal censorship of books. Under our
form OF government matters concerning
the public health and convenience and
local manners and customs are strictly
SUBJECT only to police supervision. and
their control by congress is unconstitu-
tional; il would be the despotic paternal-
ism and socialistic legislation of France
and Germany. 1t Is true that under Presi-
dent Cleveland. who signed the oleomar-
sarine bill, we erected a dangerous prece-
dent. but that act is now acknowledged to
have been contrary TO the fundamental
principle of our federal constitution, as
was freely admitted by both Republicans
and Democrats In the recent debate over
the Paddock pure food bill We are not
paternal government: do not need pa
ternal government, ana no such govern
ment was intended by the trainers Of the
constitution.
The pretence that ''the liquor question
d the great portentous social problem OF
HE time is absurd People who know the