The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1906-08-15
H.rken torte Record.

10 other way can discussion OF such
questions be made of permanent bene-
it. Take for instance the Whlskey
question. There are statements made
"a reference to it that will not stand
the test of truth. and We regret to say
that these statements, are sometimes
made from the pulpit by men VINO
have not thoroughly investigated the
matter. Whiskey is demon that IS
going up, and down the world seeking
whom to devour. Most men who have
given the whiskey problem any
thought will agree to this statement.
There is great difference OF opinion
as to the best mode Of N lnaglng tnls
demon. Some contend that the oest
way is to vote it out and not allow IL
to be sold legally. Others think tna1
the best way to control it is to coliat
it as South Carolina has done and sell
it under the most stringent law.
With US there is no sentiment
about the whiskey question. we
want it handled so as it will do the
least harm, and from our observation
and study of the subject we are salts
fed that the dispensary system homes
tly administered will accomplish
that result. Dispensary whiskey is
just as bad as any other whiskey, and
we would advise every one to do as we
do, let it alone, but we do not belieVe
that voting it out would stop people
from drinking whiskey. At least that
has been the result in every place
where it has been tried. Take the
syposium we published last week OF
the socalled dry counties. There was
not a report from one Of them but
what admitted that blind tigers were
at work. These reports were gotten
up by a paper that would like to have
been able to say that not a drop or
blind tiger whiskey was sold il these
so-called prohibition counties, but it
could not do SO and tell the truth. In
the face Of these reports it would be a
falsehood to say prohibition prohibits
in this State.
So much for South Carolina. Now
w1at is the record in Iowa, Kansas
and Maine, which are generally held
up by prohibitionist as model prohi-
bition States. In referring to these
three States a preacher in a sermon is
reported to have said recently Il
have heard people say that you can't
stop the traffic and that prohibition
won't prohibit, until it makes me
!. sick, for I have been 'er the grounds
in these States and tell you, gentle
men, that if a majority of the citizens
make up their minds to put out whis-
key and keep it out they can enforce
their will" Now let US see if this
preacher knew what he was talking
about, or was only painting a word
picture Of conditions as we would like
to see them. We shall not do like
the preacher, give our opinion, but We
will give something more substantial
! on which to base our conclusions. The
preacher says he ''has been over the
ground in these states'' and knows
y that prohibition prohibits in them.
Now let US see what the United
States census figures say on the sub.
ject.
The census bureau has j-7st issued a
bulletin containing statistics Of cities
, having a population Of 5000 to 5000.
The tables give, among other things,
the number Of arrests for different
causes and comparison has been made
by officials and men interested in soci-
/ oiogical problems between prohibition
and license states for the purpose Of
studying the effects OF prohibition,
and the result is surprising in many
respects. The total population OF the
cities between 5000 and $4,000 of lii
nois is $50, ,260, of Indiana 275,955, Of
Ohio 36s, 2SS, of iowa l64, 500, Of Kan
sas 104, ,745, of Maine 1854. Three OF
these states are license states, three
are prohibition states.
The number of arrests for drunken
ness among each one thousand lnhabi-
tants in these states is as follows: IL
nois 1880; Indiana, l7.55; Ohio, $500;
Iowa, 27.50; Kansas "A 81; Maine, Is.
80. For disturbance of the peace the
numbers of arrests are; Illinois, 6.53:
Indiana, LIP; Ohio 5 10, Kansas, 7.64;;
Maine 032. For both causes together.
Illinois, 25. .s3; Indiana, 1880; Ohio 80.
}. y; Kansas, 22.25; Maine. 25.71. These
} figures show that drunkenness is much
more prevalent in Iowa and Maine
both prohibition states, than in either
Illinois, Indiana or Ohio. And if the
arrests for drunkenness and distur-
bance of the peace are taken together
which is quite proper, because drunk
en- persons are in police stations, quite
frequently slated for disturbance OF
the peace, Kansas makes almost as bad
a showing as Illinois and a consid-
erably worse showing than Indiana.
Further com parison is still more in
terestirg. The total number Of ar
rests for each one thousand inhabi-
tants in the states named was, in
Illinois, A 444.223; q; Indiana, 41.94; Ohio, So
81; Iowa, so; Kansas, 1929; Maine, 80.
81; and the number Of arrests for
other causes than drunkenness and
disturbance of the peace was in Illi-
nois, ,ls.4o; Indiana, 22.64; Ohio, 26.39;
Iowa, 81 40; Kansas, 24.04; Maine, 7.3e.