Washington sentinel., 1899-03-25
Lees burg CvA.) vs. Prohibition.

The citizens Of Leesburg, ,Loudon
Co., Virginia, have decided to take
another vote on the question OF
local option at the coming elections
(primaries) on March 29th. The
majority of the conservative ele-
ment have at last come to the con-
clusion that the best interests and
welfare OF the town demand the
abolition Of this law. They have
considered the economy of the
matter for some time. The loss OF
the sums Of money formerly raised
by legitimate tax on the sale OF
liquors, has been more than telt
by the taxpayers OF this place.
Leesburg is supposed to be typi-
cal "dry" town. That is, it drinks
as much liquor in proportion to
It's populace as other towns do,
only it pretends that it does not.
In fact il one may trust his own
eyes as he goes through this city,
it drinks more than formerly and
it takes it straight and bad. Local
option never prohibited and never
will. 1t is a distinct injury in this
respect: that it tends to prevent
the use OF beer and light wines,
which, because they are light, must
be carried in bulk, and are there
fore more liable to be seen and
commented upon, and substitutes
tor them liquors in which the min
imum quantity insures the maxi
mum of intoxication.
The present liquor dealers (ne-
groes most of them) OF Leesburg,
who sell surreptitiouslY, know that
they are liable to be arrested any
day, consequently they endeavor
to make as much money as possi-
ble in the time before they receive
wirning to get out. and more is to
be made out of adulterated whisky
than on good liquor. A peculiar
thing in the past has been the fact
that every time vote has been
taksn on local option, the negroes,
much to the satisfaction OF the
Anti Saloon League, have voted
for tie measure. This action on
the part OF the negro element has
greatly assisted in maintaining the
local option law. Consequently
no reputable restaurants, hotels or
cafes we're permitted to sell liquor
legitiuately, and the negroes con-
tinued to reap harvest by the
illicit ale Of whisky by the jug,
pint or quart.
This accounts for the vote Of the
Darker" Now the duty OF the
officials Of Leesburg seems plain
to us. They should rigidly enforce
this law while they have it, and
make anexample OF all those who
have ben violating it. Arrest
them all il possible. a few days
before tie election and get them
out of the way, and then you surely
ought tobe able to overcome the
small majority vote cast the last
time. The evil growth of prohibi-
tion has always been hypocrisy.
The only merit claimed for it is
that theoretically it lessons drunk
mess. This claim is false. 1t
rather encourages it. The con-
slant infriction Of a law tends to
lower the worth of law, and that is
perilous. There are rustics in the
Legislatures OF all DRY" States
who feel compelled by popular
sentimentin their constituencies to
offer measures they do not them
selves believe in, and that in their
inmost hearts they do not think
their constituents believe in, either
These things they offer because
they are moral towards, and find
il easier to shift blame for their
conduct on the people than to obey
the promptings of their own hearts
and understandings. Any man
protesting to be Democrat who
follows this policy, and does not
believe in personal liberty knows
not the fundamental principles OF
Democracy. We would have the
good people OF Leesburg who
make this outcry for prohibition,
understand that it is better 20
drink openly than to drink sneak