Mississippi leader. (Jackson, Miss.) 1892-1895, 1893-07-04
THE PROHIBITION PRESS.
Editorial Opinions on the Question
of Nationalizing the Drink Traffic.

Editorial Opinions on the Question
of Matchmaking the Drink Traffic.
We Give Both Sides a Hearing-Th The
Voice" Replies to Gov. st. John-The
Prohibition Press Almost Unanimous
| in Their Opposition to the Scheme.
The question of Matchmaking the
drink traffic is at present receiving q
great deal of attention from the press
Of the nation. In this issue we give
the Prohibition press hearing, begin
ming with the Voices" reply to ex-Gov.
St. John:
ST. JOHN OBJECTS.
The New York Voice.
The following letter, characters
tically direct and manly, comes to us
from the hero of 's4:
EDITOR OF THE VoICE-Your letter
inclosing editorial published in the
Voice OF the 11th inst headed THE
Elimination of Profits has just been
received. 1t is useless for you to claim
that you have not departed from the
logic of the Prohibition party's ma
tional platforms"
The party, as you are surely aware,
has, in the very strongest terms, de-
nounced the Governments completely
in the traffic in Intoxicating liquors for
beverage purposes, under any and all
circumstances Now you propose that
the Government shall run the entire
business and still you claim that to dc
SO would be in harmony with the
logic" OF our national platforms.
The party's opposition to taking a rev.
enue from the liquor traffic has not
been made with the hope of thereby
lessening the evils that flow from the
business, but for the reason that the
taking of such revenue by the Govern.
ment was morally wrong 1t is not SC
much the revenue" but the business
from which it is derived, that de bauches
the people. You may strip the whole
business Of the revenue feature, and
place the traffic under control of the
church, open the saloon with prayer in
the morning and close it with the ben.
ediction at night, and still the devil
will be in 1t just the same, and the
work of de bauchery will go on forever.
My brother, we are all liza BILE to ma Ike
mistakes Frankly acknowledge that
you have made one That is the best
way to get out of it.
CHICAGO, I'LL JOHN p. ST. JOHN.
We accept the advice and frankly
acknowledge that we have not only
made "a mistake" but have made a
good many of them in the course OF
time. The difference between us and
the Governor on this particular subject
is that we have seen and acknowledged
the mistake we made year ago and
he hasn't seen and acknowledged
his
Let us analyze his letter. He says
that the Prohibition party has, in the
very strongest terms denounced the
Governments completely in the traffic
in Intoxicating liquors for beverage
purposes under any and all circum.
stances"
Certainly; and SO do We There is nc
difference between us and the party in
that.
lie adds: Now you propose that the
Government shall run the entire bust
ness"
No; what we propose is change in
the form of running it Has not the
Prohibition party done likewise? Let
us see. In the platform of 1883 was
the following plank:
~. For the immediate abolition of the In
ternal Revenue system. whereby our National
Government is deriving support from our
greatest national vice"
This plank proposes change in the
form of running the business, but i,
has never been construed as PROPOSE
tion to run the business. Let us
change word or two in it and the
plank will stand as fair statement o1
our position, as follows:
For the immediate abolition of the private
revenue system, whereby our fellow citizens
are deriving support from our greatest ma
tional vice.
But St John says 1.-The party's oppo-
sition to taking a revenue from the
liquor traffic" is 'for the reason that
the taking of sVh revenue by the
Government was morally wrong"
If it is morally wrong for the Gov.
ernment to take revenue from the liquor
traffic, is it not also morally wrong
for the individual to take such a rev.
enue? If our party was right in de-
manding the immediate bolition of the
Governments revenue, wherein are we
wrong in demanding the abolition OF
that much worse feature, the private
revenue?
The Governor says that 'it is not sc
much the revenue but the business
from which it is derived, that debauches
the people"
True; but if we can remove the rev
enue now and cannot remove the bust
ness, shall we refuse to do what we
can because we cannot do more? More
over by destroying the revenue" the
strong proba bility is that the "busi
ness itself will be brought nearer des-
truction. He says that if we strip the
whole business of the revenue feature
the devil will still be in it. That also
is true. 1t is not the devil we are try.
ing to get out of the business, but the
Government and its citizens, and they
are in 1t for the revenue. If it were
stripped of its revenue they could the
more readily be gotten out of it, leav.
ing it to the devil, to whom it belongs
If our attitude were one of compro-
mise. II we were to say, strip this bust
ness of its revenue and we will then
consent to the business and make it a
truce with it and no longer assail it,
then the objections St John and others
urged would be valid. But it is nc
compromise we urge. We say strip this
business of its revenue features and we
will continue to assail it and shall
make no truce with it until it is buried.
Come, Governor, we are all liable to