The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1900-11-27
EVILS or THE
LIQUOR TRAFFIC.
Temperance Is a Question of
Habit, Not of Law.
THE STATE CONSTITUTION
Says No License Shall he Granted-Poiiti-
clans Have Changed Their Front
Abroad Subject Discussed
by John Danner.


produce more harm to the human fami-
ly than wars, pestilences and famines
combined. But in discussing the rene.
dy, most people use the term temper
ance and prohibition as though they
meant the same thing; they are quite
unlike.
Temperance is question Of personal
habit, prohibition is a question of law
dealing with the liquor traffic. Law can
only deal with the traffic in two ways,
prohibit the traffic.
In Ohio we have a very good illustra-
tion of the law question. Our state
constitution clearly says: mo license
for liquor selling shall be granted"
Seventeen years ago when saloons and
the liquor traffic in general in our state
were being quite severely dealt with
under the old Adair law, the brewery
and liquor interests of the state clam
ored for tax law that would protect
their business, and make 1t legal, and
our legislators needed the appeal Of the
liquor power and enacted tax laws, first
the Pond law, second the Scott law,
both of which were pronounced uncon-
stitutional. And finally the third at
tempt was the adoption Of the Infamous
Dow tax law, which has been sustained
by a partisan court, in order to hold
the liquor vote.
Ever since the adoption of the Dow
tax law in Ohio, the liquor interests
have been growing and prospering as
never before. The revenue derived
from the traffic by the state is less than
one dollar to where 1t costs the state
fifteen to protect the paupers and GRIM
inals produced by the said traffic. And
what is far worse Is the paralyzing
effect 1t has had upon all temperance
work. Up to that time we could do good
work In gospel temperance efforts,
which, ever since, have been paralyzed.
We have right in this city half a dozen
excellent politicians. whose names
could give, who would attend gospel
temperance meetings and make speeches
who today cannot be got to attend such
meetings, much less to make speeches
as in former days for temperance and
the reformation of the fallen. Their
personal habits are as good today as
they ever were, they do not touch IL
quors, but they will not as in former
times, make speeches or attend tenn
perance meetings, because 1t would
hurt their party" and lose them the
liquor vote.
Another fact to prove that temper
ance and prohibition are separate and
distinct questions is this: There are
quite number of men who have been
addicted to the drink habit, who will
vote for prohibition at all times IN
order to get the temptation removed;
while on the other hand we have many
people, even ministers of the gospel,
who never touch intoxicating liquors
and are always talking temperance,
and yet at every election vote for
political party that legalizes and pro-
tects the traffic. This clearly proves
my position, and challenge any man
truthfully to contradict 1t.
No political party that upholds the
legalization of the traffic, either by tax
or license laws, can be in favor of pro-
hibiting the traffic; neither can a DO.
litical party that upholds prohibition Of
the liquor traffic be in favor of any
system Of tax or license laws for the
traffic. The two plans Of dealing with
this great evil are In direct conflict with
each other and hold that any voter
who casts his ballot with q tax or
license party should be equally honest
to his party and oppose prohibition,
and uphold the legalization Of the
traffic by the same system Of tax or
license, whereby revenue is obtained
and the liquor sellers and manufacturers
are made partners In our government,
and every man who votes with a party
that upholds prohibition and destruc-
ton for the traffic should oppose all
political parties that plead for the life
OF the traffic by any system of tax or
license. high OF low.
Dodging plain issue and shielding
behind an outside question like that Of
temperance is pettifogging the question.
The personal habits of men have moth
ing to do with this question OF law that
either protects the traffic or entirely
prohibits II. In proof Of this, will say
we have right here In our midst saloon
men who never drink drop Of intoxi-
eating liquors. II the question Of tenn
perance or the personal habits of men
are to be dragged into this legal con-
test, then such saloon keepers must be
counted as temperance men.
The funny part of this whole ques-
sioh, ~ dhoWcQ u DC HlxeQ up WIN
each other, as temperance ana prohi-
bition being the same thing. is that
many of the liquor papers plead for
temperance but most vigorously oppose
prohibition.
1t certainly must mean that some Of
our religious teachers and the liquor
papers must occupy different points Of
vision. for both plead for temperance,
but talk. write and vote against pro.
hibition, and I defy any Judge of an
election to tell when the ballots are
counted out that uphold the perpetua-
tion of the liquor traffic by means of
the Dow tax law in Ohio, whether they
were cast by preacher or by q saloon
man A
The fact is that many temperance
men vote against prohibition every
time. while we have some intemperaso
men who do vote for prohibition. In
discussing this question let W not for
get that temperance In q personal mat