Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1906-09-13

ing such names of national reputatlon
as h. h. lloar, ex-governor Russell,
Chas. Theodore Russell, ex-governor
Gaminer, ex-governor Rice, Patrick
Collins, and Others equally known,
was sent broadcast throughout tn
commonwealth.
Following the protest of the law
yers came one of the physicians, head
ed by Oliver Wendell Holmes, and
subscribed to by nearl all the emf
nent doctors Of the state.
The merchants and business men.
approaching the disaster that would
follow prohibition, also united in a re-
monstrance to which were .
nearly one thousand names,
Labor united with capital in hostil-
ity to prohibition, The labor leaders
declaring it their belief that the adop-
ton of the amendment would serious
" effect the interests of laboring men
urged its defeat.
The remonstrance, supported by the
great names signed to them, conceded
with the experience Of the people who
had tried prohibition and knew by its
fruits what 1t was. Statistics were
not wanting to show its evil effects
when it was formerly the law Of the
state. These statistics were above
suspicion, as thew We're prepared un-
der the order Of the Governor and the
Legislature bv the Hon. Carroll ID.
Wright, one of the most eminent and
reliable statisticians in America. They
show the alarming extent of intern
perance under prohibition, and the
rapid decrease of drunkenness when
the prohbitory statute vas replace !
by a license law,
The tax question cut a consider
able figure in the campaign, The
enormous loss of revenue from Ii
censes and the consequent heavy in
crease in taxes were so obvious that
the prohibitionists did not attempt ia
argue on this question.
United with the prohibitionists
were the low saloon and divekeepers
of the state, and these strove for pro-
hibition with a zeal worthy Of a high
err motive and a better cause. They
worked for prohibition in order thai
there might be no license, and that
under prohibition, they might have an
ornortunity of conducting an illegal
and surreptitious traffic. They could
not conduct such illegal business
while other men held licenses, because
no man would sneak through alleys
and by-ways to p%atronize them. This
fact convinces earnest and conserva-
tive people that prohibition meant un,
restricted traffic, and the amendment
was defeated by HOSP majority.
In 1853 Rhode Island adopted pro
hibition and for ten years gave it the
fairest trial possible. In 1868 the re-
suits had been so injurious that the
law was repealed. Not satisfied with
the first experience, she again adopted
prohibition in 1886. The second ex.
pertinent proved far moredisastrous
than the first, and inJune 1889, the
people of that state repudiated nro'
hibition at the polls by an enormous
majority of 1887 out of a total vote
of less that $4,000, the vote east
against prohibition being nearly three
to one in its favor. When the law
was adopted in 1886 it had a majority
of 1888. Three years of experience
had, therefore, changed the views OF
more than four-ffths of the voters OF
the state on this subject. History
does not present any more striking
change of public opinion upon any
subject.
As early as 1854 Connecticut placed
rrohibition in the organic law of the
state, and for eighteen years used the
utmost power of the commonwealth
for its enforcement, and finally gave
u the experiment in 1872. In Octo.
Der, 1889, an effort was made tC
again engraft prohibition upon the
state constitution and resulted in a
glorious failure, nearly three votes tC
one being east against the measure.
New York passed prohibitory laws
in 1854, tried them for two years and
gave up the experiment as hopeless.
The first attempt at prohibition in
Pennsylvania was made in June 1889
The question was thoroughly discus
sed and after thorough enlightenment
the Keystone state declared by a ma
.jority of 1914, 556-the greatest ever
east by any state on any subject since
the formation of the Union-that the
law was not suited to it or helpful
to the cause Of temperance.
In 1855 Maryland adonted prohi.
bition. In no state was the result Sc
disastrous and so freighted with evils
Bad results followed the law so rap
idly that after a few months trial
it was repealed, and there has been
no disposition ON the part of tn.
State to repeat the severe lesson ii
then received.
In the same zeal Delaware adODted
prohibition and tried for two year,
to enforce it, but in 1857 gave the
effort and has since shown no inclin.
alton to again trv the ev~oriment.
Ohio also revealed the bitter ex.
perience. The law in hat State which