The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-04-04
THE PROHIBITION DISPUTE.
To the Editor OF The Herald:

A communication published in the
daily Tribune of the LIST inst, signed
by c. J. Quinn, deserves a passing no
tice. Admitting that "a great deal of
crime is caused by excessive drink, !"
he believes that the true cure for in
ebriety is in education; teaching young
men self-respect, and in parents max
ing home life so pleasant that the
youth of the country will not seek the
saloon and streets for companionShip
and diversion" Has not this proposed
remedy for intemperance been tried for
ages, and Notwithstanding, IS not in
temperance and it's resultant evils
alarmingly on the increase? Again,
does the saloon assist in teaching
young men "self-respect?" Does the
saloon assist the parents in their work
of education? Does it not rather tend
to nullify and destroy every virtue that
is incuIcated in the home?
But suppose that all the statements
copied from the Chicago Tribune were
true, is it any reason why the legal
voters of Utah should not be allowed
to vote upon and decide this question
for themselves? Every statement in
the Tribune article is a strong argu-
ment against statutory control of the
liquor traffic and IN favor of constitu-
tional prohibition. Advanced prohibit
prohibition because it drives the Ques-
ton into politics and keeps it subject
TO the corrupting influences and
changing caprices of politics. If, how
ever, a fair majority of the legal vot-
ers of a state determine that prohibi
ton is the best policy for a state, 1t
will be a success.
But why cannot the apologists Of the
liquor traffic tell the truth? Is 1t be-
cause the truth, if told, would con-
denim their business and destroy their
that New Hampshire tried prohibition
for thirty-four years, leaving the in
ference that the law was then re-
pealed; the fact is that the prohibition
law of New Hampshire, passed in 1885,
is still in full force and effect. The
reference to the attempt to incorporate
prohibition in the constitution Of New
Hampshire in 1889 is equally mislead
ing, The article says: This was voted
down by an enormous majority, only
two counties in the state giving a ma
jority in favor of prohibition" The
fact is that there were but ten counties
in the state and the official vote shows
that four counties out of the ten gave
majorities for prohibition; and that in
total vote of 56,762 the majority
against prohibition was only $50. And
it is an undeniable fact that that ma
jority cost the liquor traffic over $780,
600. With reference to the vote upon
constitutional prohibition in Michigan.
the article says: Her people would
not have it and overwhelmed it at the
polls What are the facts? That gross
frauds were perpetrated by the OPP
ponents of prohibition in that cam
paign, especially in the large cities, is
a matter of history In one precinct
in Detroit, from which only nine votes
for prohibition were returned, more
than seventy men made oath that they
had voted for 1t. Yet, Notwithstanding
all the frauds, the majority against
prohibition was only 5,545 out Of a total
of 1862, 917.
"Faise in one, false in all" 1r these
are fair samples of the facts % stated
in the Tribune article it ought to have
no weight with thinking people. The
article in question also resorts to the
argument based upon the
number of United States government
permits issued in prohibition states;
like all so-called arguments against
prohibition, there is nothing in it.
Every drug store in prohibition states
takes out a government permit; be-
sides these, every '4boot-legger," every
keeper of a blind Pig or '.hole-in-the-
wall, in fact every disreputable
scoundrel who intends to violate the
law of the state, takes out a govern
ment permit. The Tribune article