Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1903-01-06
::LooKER-0N IN IOWA:
:


Mingo, Jan. 5.-In this column re-
Gently the writer took occasion to
mention some conditions of today con-
tccrning the sale of liquor in wet and
idry counties in Iowa and found 1t a fair
argument that reinforcement was
! the cause of the increase of drinking
and drunkenness in this state that any
ffair-minded observer must admit. In
lreply to this Mr.. w. Howard. of Mar
lshalltoWn, an out -and-out prohibition
ist has nearly a column in the T.-R. as
lWell as much space in the Marshall-
town Herald. Admitting all that the
writer claims, the g;st of his two col
umns is that the republican party OF
Iowa is responsible tor the admittedly
bad state of affairs. Now the writer
never has used this column in the spirit
lof controversy, but It is only right to
Eset some erroneous statements of Mr..
Howard just where they belong. Not
Iwithstanding his denial, we have in
Iowa in round numbers some fifty coun-
ties where the prohibitory law is IN
force. law put there by the republican
party, and where the following state
ments will hold good:
First, the whisky drug store there
thrives and fiourishes; second, in these
counties the bootlegger does good
business; third, in these counties the
travelling agent for the wholesale houses
gets the largest number of orders; anc
fourtfly, in these counties the Z. .. -.
express whisky shop does the most
business. These facts are known and
admitted by Mr. Howard and his llk,
and only spasmodic efforts are made to
lessen these increasing sales OF liquors
in these dry (?) counties.
Admit the republican party. the DEM
ocratic party and the populist party are
with the prohibition party in this lack
of enforcement. Is 1t the duty of po-
litical party to especially enforce any
particular law? 1t is not on record that
the prohibition party pays any particu-
lar attention to the enforcement OF the
law against horse stealing or the social
evil. Why should they? But the mem
bers of the Horse Thief Associa-
ton do pay particular attention to the
criminal acts OF horse thieves. and So
cial purity societies do look after the
acts of the keepers of houses OF Ill
fame. The claim made by the writer,
and it is here repeated, that the profess
slonal prohibitionist the one who is
earnest, the one who had most to DO
with getting this law on the statute
book (not all, but the Majority, now
calmly fold their hands and call upon
the republican party to enforce this
particular law.
AS for the mulct law and the wet
counties" the friends of this measure
are just as complacent ana just as wen
satisfied to let matters go from bad TO
worse. The increased open violations OF
this law, the increase of open drunken
ness are making arguments every DAY
IN favor of a change
Mon like Mr.. Howard find in this
o,trageou condition new arguments IN
favor of prohibition. Men IKE MT
Abrams find bad conditions enough to
make a living out of prosecutions. But
the mass of the people In Iowa, VINO
believe in temperance, are utterly dis
gusted with conditions in both the
wet" and "dry" counties. They see IN
both prohibition and mulct law counties
a rapid inc1ease in drinking and drunk
enness, young and old. They want no
more laws, but they DO want the pres
ent laws on the statute books enforced
or repealed. The majority of the people
have sense enough not to call on any |
particular party to enforce such laws.
The writer is in receipt of a letter
from one of the prominent attorneys OF
Iowa concerning late references IN the
T.-R. to our game laws. Attic the
reader will notice this personal letter
was to serve as a text for the writer,
the facts are so much better given by
this gentleman that the Looker-on will /
take the liberty to use it for copy" in /
this column.
Several days ago the T.-R. had
to say about the game hog"
or some such person, meaning the man
who had orders to supply the restau-
rants and hotels with quail. You said /
this man kept within the law and did
not kill over twenty-five birds day
and that there was no way to punish
him, and that sportsmen despised him.
There is statute that few people know
about. Section 2.552 OF the i
code says: No person shall at any time
or at any place within this state trap,
shoot or kill for traffic any pinated
grouse or prairie chicken, woodcock,
quail etc. The penalty is $40 bird.
There was game hog in Grinnell. In
1901 he closed his blacksmith shop and
killed quail for traffic prosecuted
him and convicted him and he paid a
fine of 800 and costs. This was on
one count only I could have convicted
him on twenty counts. I thought one
dose would be enough. and it was. He
has not had gun in his hands this set
SOM Perhaps the T.-R. can reach these
game hogs by the same process. All
good men will applaud. prosecuted
fees, but with great satisfac-
ton. No verdict was ever more popular.
1 would suggest this as text for a
good sermon. think .Looker-On' would
be more widely read than a letter from
me and would have better effect. Be
sides. modesty forbids my airing my
own part in the matter. There is plenty
of law to ruin your game hog.
The writer of the above makes one
error. Nothing from outside sources in
the T.-R. has ever been read with more
interest than the Yellowstone Park let
ters from the pen Of the prosecutor of