The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-01-20
TO BE cAREFuLLY ooNs1DERED.

Some very excellent people are en-
deavoring TO establish in Utah the
system of prohibition as to intoxicat-
ing drinks, which has been tried in
several states with more or less sue
cess, according TO the different re
ports made by conflicting authorities,
1t is probably true that public drink
ing has been measurably If not totally
abolished in some parts of the pro
hibition" states, but we do not think
its most ardent advocates claim that
tippling has been suppressed there by
prohibition. We believe. however.
that it has been greatly modified.
The Herald is ready to support any
practical proposition for the welfare
of the new state which is compatible
with the rights of citizens. And if
this movement is of that character it
Will not be opposed by this paper.
We have full confidence in the good
intentions OF the promoters of the
scheme, but we are in doubt as to its
adaptability to the conditions of this
commonwealth. We are therefore de-
sfrous that st shall be thoroughly in
vestigated before it is either rejected
or adopted.
The gentlemen who present it to
the public disclaim any intention of
interfering with the individual rights
of citizens. They do not wish to him
der any one from drinking What he
pleases, in his OWN house. 1t is to
! abolish the saloon and do away with
the liquor manufacture and traffic in
the new state that they address their
endeaYors.
That puts the matter in a way that
will appeal to many other people be-
sides believers in prohibition in its
strictest sense. They propose to pro-
ht'bit the manufacture and the sale
and gift of intoxicants as a beverage.
These liquids are not to be made.
sold or given away in the state. A
man may import them for his own
use, but not for the use of anybody
else. AS their proposition reads. if he
should give anything intoxicating to
a friend, he would violate the law
which they desire enacted.
A distillery or saloon might be es-
tablished just over the line on either
side of the new state and liquors
might be brought in by private indi-
viduals exclusively for their own use,
the state or territory where they are
bought reaping the profits of the sale
and license revenue, and Utah receiv-
ing not a cent. We merely state the
facts without Offering amy comment.
The point which we wish to draw
attention to more particularly is this;
It is proposed to submit the prohibit
ton provision to the vote of the peo-
pie of the territory, to decide whether
it shall be part of the supreme law Of
the state. That looks very fair But
is it so? The conditions in Salt Lake
Ogden and Provo cities are vastly
different to those in st. George in the
south, Richmond in the north, Uintat
county in the east and Tooele county
in the west. Why should the people
Iof the outlying districts decide what
shall be the rule in the central cities
we have named?
We are of the opinion that ample
authority should be given to the legis-
laturs TO provide for the prohibition
suppression, regulation or restriction
of the manufacture and sale of in.
toxicants, as the different cities and
counties may determine We do moi
think that the people Of the countte.
and cities which would be favorable
to prohibition should decide for thoss
which would be against it. Local op
tion would be more democratic il
principle and more satisfactory il
practice.
We offer these suggestions i'm brief
without going into details at present
We may recur to the subject. which
is very important TO Utah. We hav
no fight against the people who seel
to Danish evils that have always beer
a curse to the human family. But w
do not want to see something fastened
upon the State Of Utah at it's birth
which lit would be glad to throw of
in a short time but would find diff
cult to get rid of. Let the matter b
we'll considered on all sides.