The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1895-11-12


We have insisted for a good many years
that local option IS the best method for
I dealing with the liquor question. and
have yet TO hear a satisfactory reason for
I changing our opinion Those who are
urging the adoption of a prohibition law.
OF dispensary law. do not undertake TO
show that the evils that Cow from in
tozacants would be abatad if their views
in respect To liquor were adopted. In
their arguments recently before commit
tees OF the legislature they did not show
that il there were antl-barroom lcEisla-
ton there would be any abatement Of
drunkenncss. or crimes traceable TO in
toxicants. They confined themselves al
most wholly to pointing out the evils that
flow from The abuse Of intoxicants. These
evils all admit But they exist where there
is prohibition or partial prohibition. The
conclusion, therefore is that the way 10
check these evils is TO educate the peo-
pie against intemperance. That is, Of
course, q difficult thing to do. and yet it
seems to be the only course that promises
success.
We published some statistics last Sun
day which show that there is about as
much drunkenness in the cities Of the pro-
hibition state of Maine as there is in the
cities Of states in which intoxicants are
sold openly and freely. Even the pro-
hibitionisis admit that prohibition does
not prohibit. Those who want liquor can
get it whether they live where there are
prohibition laws or not, and they do set
il. A thing that is prohibited seems to
be desired with greater intensity than if
it was to be had for the asking. That is
one reason probably why there is so much
drunkenness in cities of Maine, where
there has been prohibltory law for al
most half a century
For many years there has been ma
tional prohibition party. 1t doesn't grow
in strength. Why? Because the people
do not approve the doctrine of prohibit
ton. They believe in regulating the Ii
quor traffic so as to lessen the evils Of it,
and it is regulated in all of the states,
but they are against prohibiting it, be
cause they know from experience that if
prohibited greater evils would likely arise
from intoxicants than at present.
We admit that in cities and counties
in which the great majority of the people
are in favor Of prohibition the sale of in
toxicants can be greatly lessened by pro-
hibitory laws, because public sentiment
compels the enforcement OF the laws, but
does any one believe a prohibitory law
could be enforced in city like this or
Atlanta? If there We're such a law there
would be an attempt at enforcing it, but
the attempt would be so weak that there
would be twice as many places at which
intoxicants could be obtained as there are
now. They would be hidden away in all
sorts of out of the way corners, and people
would get surreptitiousy what they now
get openly. And there would be much
greater amount of drinking in homes
than there is now.
1t is this condition Of affairs the prohi-
bitionists invite by there anti-barroom
bill-a condition that would be far worse
than that which now exists. Yet they
seem willing to accept it for the satisfac-
ton of saying they have secured a prohi-
bitory law.
There is one way in which we can have
prohibition which would to a great ex-
tent stop the sale of intoxicants, and that
is the converting of the majority of the
people to take a stand against the liquor
traffic. When the majority of the people
of any community say they viii have no
barrooms the barrooms have to go. The
law against the sale of liquor in that
community in enforced. All drinking is
not prevented. but the evils flowing from
liquor are greatly checked. If we want
genuine prohibition in this city. or any
other city of the state, we must rely upon
local option-we must first convert the
majority to the doctrine of prohibition.
They will then see to it that the bar
rooms are closed.