The Portland daily press., 1895-09-21
THEPROGREsS OF PROHIBITION.
Reply to Some Statements Made at the
Temperance Conference at Bale.


Boston, Sept. 90. Atsthe recent inter
national temperance congress at Basle,
Switzerland, Herr Calls Thomann, man.
ager of the United States Brewers Asso-
citation, and president of the German
Press Club of New York, made state
ments concerning American temperance
legislation to which sthe W. G. L. u.
invited Councillor Mains, 6. G. T., to
reply. The reply of Mr.. Mains is now
published in English. In it, he says: l
note that Herr Thomann cites the percen-
tages of divorces as between prohibition
states and liquor license states. But the
United States is as large as Europe, and
the conditions of lifeands the divorce laws
are about as varied as in the different
countries of Europe hence equitable COM
parsons are impossible on such basis.
HERR THOMANN'S METHODS.
[ will give one illustration of Herr
Thomann's methods when he seeks to
show that prohibitory state is non-pro-
gressive in population as compared with
a license state. Thus he shows that from
the year 1880 to 1890 prohibitory Maine
only increased two per cent, in popula-
ton, while Massachusetts,, under license,
increased over 25 per cent. Yet he knows
that Massachusetts, has for many years
had local option law under (which. OF
the 349 local government areas covering
the state, between $50 and 800 prohibit
tho common sale of intoxlcants. Herr
Thomann knows this but conceals 1t. and
cites it's prosperous population as Illus
trat iY1fr a license state.
STATES ENJOYING LOCAL OPTION.
Herr Thomann says that prohibition
has been defeated in many states. 1t is
true-that some states have voted for and
some against prohibition but sometimes
the so-called defeats of Temperanceavoters
only mean that some Estates in which
each locality has a power of prohibition,
and others which have enacted state pro-
hibition, have been polled on the further
question of embodying ii in the constitute
ion. and they havesfailed to give such two
third majority. Such failure, however,
leaves unimpaired the state or local pro
hibitory law which had already existed.
Thus the following states have IN opera
ton law under which the voters OF each
country or municipality can, by bare
UdJOflbv Vi SOtco Setoe, eNNOASS S--Nso, - va
current annual LIQUOR licenses expiring at
the end of the license year, no licenses
shall be again granted MASSACHUSETTS,
Rhode Island, Virginia, ONO, Nebraska
Washington Territory, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Connecticut. Oregon, Illinois.
South Carolina, Colorado, District OF
Columbia, Louisiana, Georgia, Montana,
Michigan Arkansas, California, Ken
lucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Texas,
Florida, Wisconsin and Indiana. Thus
the legislatures OF a majority. of the states
of the American Union have enacted that
the people of the different districts may,
by vote, extinguish the common sale of
intoxicatingsdrinks a bylaw as stringent..as
the most advanced British temperance
veforn.ers have desired to see enacted in
their own country. The electors (Which
comprise all males q years of age AID
upwards) have in hundreds Of the towns
end counties Of these American states
thus enacted local prohibition, although
these states are not classed as prohibitory
states