The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-11-20
TWO INSTANCES.

We have lately seen two very significant statements on the question of prohibition significant because they are made by men who have heretofore been among the strongest advocates of prohibitive meas ures. The first is an extract from a book written by Albert Grifin, well-known prohibitionist of Kansas To the ques- tion. What ought Kansas to do nowT" he replies:
 reply, expunge prohibition from the Constitution; repeal all liquor laws imme- | diately; and, until a vote has been had on prohibition. put nothing in their place except, possibly, a law prohibiting the 1 sale of intoxicants to inebriates and other irresponsibles, with severe penalties for Its violation; making dealers responsible for all losses resulting from the use of liquor sold by them: and leaving them still subject to the common law against | nuisances.
 | Kansas, as is well known, is a State where absolute prohibition laws have for some years been on the statute books and have been regularly and systematically disregarded. It is an open secret that in almost any of the towns and cities of that State any man can procure intoxicating ] liquors who wants them, and the natural | result is that all the evils of intemperance prevail while neither the State nor any municipal government derives any reve- nue from the sale of these liquors. They have all the evils of drinking without any of the benefits. and such a condition of affairs Is no credit to any State or com munity. Mir. Griffin, 1t will be observed, proposes to go to the other extreme and throw everything wide open, so far as State and municipal regulations are con- cerned. What the effect will be it is hard to say, and 1t may be that he hopes through unlimited and unlicensed liquor traffic to create a sentiment which Will be favorable to prohibition in the future, or which will at least awaken the people to the blessings of temperance. If he makes liquor selling and drinking unpop- ular by his plan he may do some good after all.
 The other noted expression comes from Dr. Parkhurst of New York and IS some what along the same line. On the ques- ton of allowing the saloons Of that city to remain open part of each Sunday. he said:
 | am for Sunday opening of the saloons. I should bar whiskey and liquors. but let the people have beer and light wines. A man who wants whiskey on Sunday can keep it at home. People cannot have dr aught beer on tap in their houses. l And again he said:
 | We cannot have an ideal excise law. Let us try to have one that can be en- | forced. No one can enforce the present Sunday law. Why draw the line between | rich and poor? The man who is well-to-do can have his drink in his club without breaking the law. Why should not the poor man have his in the saloon without being held up as a criminal?
 II will be observed that pr. Parkhurst is virtually governed by the same reasons which caused Mir Griffin to change his position It is well known that he is one of the most intolerant opponents of in temperance in the city of New York, but he, like the Kansas man, realizes the ut ter impossibility of enforcing absolute prohibition. especially in large city. And he sees, too, the unfairness of a law which allows some to drink at will and totally prevents others.
 But willie we appreciate Dr. Parkhurst's s plea Ter fairness and for a law which can b, enforced, we are compelled to add that we. are firmly opposed to any open saloons on Sunday If we could control the matter it would be as difficult to get into any saloon on that day as 1t is to get into a bank vault, and no one should buy intoxicating drinks of any kind on that day except upon the written authority of reputable physician, and then both sell | CT and doctor should be held accountable for any evasion of the law. There are | some occupations which necessity re- quires to be carried on during every day of the week. and the calm of the Sabbath is disturbed in many ways that can hard ly be avoided unless we stop all travel and traffic but saloon keeping is not one of them. The man who feels that he is compelled to have something to drink on Sunday can keep 1t at home, or in his office or other place of business. where he may drink without disturbing others.
 Neither do we concur in the argument that the saloons should be kept open part | of every Sunday-about six hours, Dr. Parkhurst says-because the rich man can drink at his club. That is doubtless true, but drinking in the comparative pri- vacy of club room is a very different affair from a wide open saloon. As to
 the proposition of Dr. Parkhuhst that
 he would bar whiskey and liquors, that
 is all moonshine He would be a very dull dispenser of drinks who couldn't I
 and light wines. If you give the saloon
 ist a right to sell one kind of drink you
 may as well tell him to sell all for he vii
 do 1t anyhow.
 But these two instances, from widely
 separated points, and from two earnest
 prohibitionists, show how thinking men are beginning to realize the impossibility of enforcing absolute and total prohibi- ton.