The Savannah morning news., 1902-06-11
NOT YET SATISFIED.

entertained by majority of the pro-
hibitionists or not. but we assume that
as the defeat of the prohibition candi-
date was overwhelming it is not.
Mr.. W. 3. Stubs of this city is one
of the prohibitionists who think. that
the recent test was not a satisfactory
one. In a communication published
yesterday, he says that he was very
much surprised by an editorial in the
Morning News. in which the position
was taken that the primary settled the
prohibition question in this state.
We confess that we are surprised
that Mr.. Stubs was surprised. We
fail to see how any other conclusion is
possible from the result of last Thurs
days primary than the one we reach
ed. 1t is true that Mr.. Stubs gives
several reasons for thinking that the
primary did not show whether the ma
jority OF the white people favor prohi-
bition or not. but it does not seem to
us that the reasons will bear examina-
ton. He says that a very large pro-
portion of the people of the rural dis
tricts did not vote, because this is their
busy season. But as the prohibitionists
are supposed to be very earnest in
their efforts in behalf of a state pro-
hibition law it is as reasonable to as
sumo they made sacrifices for their
cause as TO suppose the local optionlsts
were the more active. Mr.. Stubs has
no information that shows that the
proportion of prohibitionists who did
not vote was larger than the proportion
of local optionists. What he says is
simply an opinion Of his, based, as far
as we can see, upon no evidence what
ever.
He says that hundreds, thousands,
voted for Mr.. Terrell because they
thought him just as good a prohibition
lists as Mr.. Guerry. We must think
that Mr.. Stubs is mistaken or have
a very poor opinion of the intelligence
of the great majority of prohibition
lists. If there ever was a clean cut
issue it was that between prohibition
and local option in the recent primary.
We venture to say that that issue will
never be presented more clearly or
more strongly or more ably in this
state again.
Mr.. Stubs says that many voters
did not feel that prohibition was an
issue because Mr.. Terrell said that he
would do for prohibition all that Mr..
Query could. All the comment we
have to make upon prohibitionists of
that kind is that it is not a matter of
much consequence to them whether
whisky is sold in the state or not.
They are not profoundly interested in
the question of prohibition.
1t seems to us that Mr.. Stubs and
other active prohibitionists are wholly
mistaken as to what the sentiment of
the people is in regard to the liquor
question. As we look at it there are
very many voters in every county who
favor either prohibition or a dispen-
sary who are against state prohibition.
And why? Simply because they know
enough of the experiences of the states
which have tried prohibition to con-
vince them that a state prohibitive law
would be productive of more harm than
good-that much of the good which has
would be lost. They are convinced that
state prohibition would be step back
ward. They are county prohibitionists
not state prohibitlonists.
A fight was made to repeal the pro-
hibition law of Vermont in the recent
campaign in that state. The result
showed the forces pretty evenly bal
anced. The Springfield Republican,
one of the most influential papers IN
New England. commenting on the cam
paign, in it's issue of last Sunday said:
Everybody knows that prohibition
does not prohibit in the Green Noun
tain state Illegal. liquor selling
abounds. The United States internal
revenue Office issues probably as large
a number Of federal licenses relative
to population in Vermont as in the So
called rum states. There is hardly a
considerable town, village or city in
the state where liquor cannot be OBJ
tanned outside of the town agencies
and the latter often become mere dis
pensaries for the sale of drink regard
less of the medical and mechanical re-
quirements of the law. Much illegal
selling, the substitution of cheap hard
liquors for soft, and an alarming use
of drugs and alcoholic medicines, are
claimed to exist as a natural and inev-
table consequence of any attempt al
general prohibition. 1t is a policy
which masks widespread intemperance
and disregard of law in an appearance
Of sobriety established by fiat of stat
ute
Yes, that is what prohibition has
been found to do in every state in
which it has been tried, and in which
it is being tried now, namely, to mask
widespread intemperance and disre-
gard of law in an appearance of So
briefly. We have always said that if We
had a general prohibition law in this
state the saloon might disappear but
the liquor traffic would go on There
would be just as much intemperance
as there is now, probably more, be-
cause the efforts TO educate the people
against the use OF intoxicants would
practically cease. Having secured the
appearance of sobriety the prohibition
lists would rest on their oars and the
educational work in behalf of temper
ance would cease. Local option is the
best way that has yet been discovered
! to deal with the liquor evil because il
calls for constant agitation.