Marble Hill press. (Marbel [sic] Hill, Mo.) 1881-1923, 1904-03-03
~ r. ~ T. 4 T. Il s

Other turns out? Begin a quiet lnveStl-
CATION OF this question. You will find
that, in majority of cases, the fellow
who claims that the saloon keeps down
blind tigers is the saloon man himself.
mean by the saloo> man, fellow who
| patrOnizes the saloon or the one who
| takes drink and "tlinks there is no
| harm in it," The saloon keeper shows
his hatred of blind tigers during elections
of this kind, only. | hate them all the
time. Ask a saloon keeper to suggest
some method OF destroying the blind
tigers IN community and he will say
issue him dramshop license. Isn't
there something wonderful about this?
He would have you license him to violate
the law in order to drive out the fellow
who is breaking the law without q license.
Let me suggest how to rid a community
OF blind tiger. My plan is to prosecute
him as you would any criminal, for a
man who sells liquor illegally is criminal
be he blind tiger man, saloon keeper,
or dealer of any kind. 1t is not neces-
sary to grant one man a license to do
wrong in order to prevent another from
doing wrong. Following up this argu-
ment we find we ought to grant license
to prevent crime altogether. For instan-
ce, we might grant men a license to steal
occasionally from those who are able to
stand the loss and thereby get rid of
burglars and highwaymen. But we don't
do that. We prosecute. Some one says
licensing the fellow to steal wouldn't
prevent robbery, etc. l don't claim it
would. A man with any sense know
better. But would be as safe IN max mo
this argument as the fellow who -eants
saloons to drive out blind tigers. Nobody
but saloon people claim this for a saloon
and he only because he hop Is to make
unsuspecting voters believe. it is true so
they will vote him a licer Sc.
Let me make a conn .,arison, Dexter
Stoddard county, for the past five wears
has had two and tn zee saloons rpnnino
all the time and during that time one old
druggist there sold liquor all the tune.
For the past fiv years Marble Hill has
had no saloons and one old druggist
there has soti liquor all the time. In
Dexter the '4aloons guaranteed the pro-
lection OF ne tiger and in Marble Hill the
prosecute ng attorney has been a regular
customer, and when forced to prosecute
him, the Judge and jury would be so light
IN as sessing penalties that fines were
cheaper than license. But am glad to
say that things have changed. In Dexter
the saloons have been swept away ard
the old man has been left without pro-
lection and in Marble Hill it seems to be
pretty uncomfortable for the old man.
The law hasn't been changed so the above
must be facts. Vote saloons out of our
county and give blind tiger men good
heavy fines and occasionally six months
term in Jail, for change, and the liquor
business would disappear from the face
of the earth.
But, granting that the saloon is the
only remedy for blind tiger, and that
we are forced to have one or the other. is |
not the tiger as good as the saloon? Is |
not the influence of the saloon upon a |
community as bad as that of the sstiger?" |
/ claim that the influence of the saloon |
is more dangerous than the "tiger," but
will grant that they are the same in ex-
tent. Why then is one preferable to the
other? Why, for revenue of course,
shout the saloon gang. Why, without
our revenue the county couldn't have
good roads and bridges and could not
build jails, etc. This statement of the
opposition is lie. Liquor drinking
doesn't make roads nor build BRIDGES and
if those who drink it and therefore make
the above argument, would spend more
time in working roads and less in raising
hell around saloons we would have better
roads and have less need for iails and
Stoddard county has no
better roads than Bollinger and has
more than a dozen of these
"good roads" institutions for wears. The
same county has not as good a courthouse |
nor jail as has Bolhnger. and il tl1au