The representative., 1895-09-25
LIQUOR AT COST

STATE CONTROL VS.. PROHIBITION
PROF. DOBBYN VICTOR IN THE
DEBATE LAST EVENING.
Prof. w. r. Dobbyn and Prof. T. J.
Cation last evening discussed the liquor
question in w. c. T. U. Hall, to the de-
light of a goodly company of listeners.
The proposition was the control of the
traffic at cost. by the state, as against
legislative prohibition, Prof. Dobbyn ad-
vocating control. He opened the debate,
speaking for little less than an hour.
His arguments were based on seven
grounds, as follows: First that such con-
troll as was advocated would abolish the
adulteration of liquor; second, it would
abolish internal revenue derived from
liquor; third, it would abolish the polit-
ical power of the saloon; fourth, it would
destroy all private monopoly and gain;
fifth, it would totally abolish the Amerl-
can saloon; sixth. it would forever settle
the liquor problem; and, lastly, it would
place the ban of socity upon the consum-
er. where it rightly belongs. He declared
the strongest point of the system to be
that it would be absolutely self-enforc>
ing. By removing the element of profit,
blind pigs would be impossible, as no
monopoly could compete with the state.
The state would be relieved of Furnishing
fractures Of law now so common. Lo-
cal option would be a success. The Sun
day violating question would be settled
once for all. The "at cost" feature would
settle everything Prohibition, Dobbyn
declared, kept the saloon in politics,
where it never ought to be. State owner
ship and operation would leave the busi-
ness without friend. Prohibition, how
ever good, is altogether impracticable.
The thing to do is to proceed along the
lines of the least resistance. PrOhibi-
tionists forget man and his conditions
and surroundings in their attempt to
reach ideal results. The main fault of
the prohibitionists is that they are in
too big hurry.
The state should own and operate all
liquor traffic; the liquor should be dis
pensed by men above reproach and with
out any personal interest in the sale of
the liquor. Gradually the demand would
die out, and the state would soon find
itself out of business.
Prof. Cation followed with straight
out prohibition argument, along the
lines of his well-known position on the
question. He is an eloquent speaker,
and used the most persuasive of his
powers. He made much Of the moral
side of the question, and the horror of the
state, which should be the parent of the
citizen selling to the citizen that which
makes him less worthy as citizen. The
example of the state debauching it's own
people would be too odious for a civilized
community. To be consistent the state
would nave TO own and operate houses
of gambling and prostitution. He said
he would favor high license to state con-
troll. Anything better than the state
sanctioning the business. He leveled the
lance of satire at the argument of the
state being unable to enforce law, and
said such a declaration was cowardly
and tended to cause disrespect of law.
The government dispensary would still
be only a saloon. and "a saloon by any
other name would stink as bad
The judges were Judges Seagrave
Smith, Charles M. Pond and Stephen Ma
honey; A. H. Hall and F. N. Hendrix.
They found on the theoretic aspect of
prohibition that Cation had the best of
the case; but on the pracital question as
to the policy best adapted to present
conditions, they were unanimous that
Prof. Dobbyn had the case. On the ar
guments as a whole, they gave the palm
to the Progressive Age editor, Prof.
DObbyn.