Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1906-09-13
HISTORY OF PROHI.
BITION IN AMERICA

Vermont followed lame IN 1907 by
the adoption of p%rohibitory laws, and
kept them continually on her statute
books for half a century. In the eff
fort to enforce these laws severe and
unusual punishments, search without
warrant and denial of trial by jury
were resorted to, the accused was
forced to testify against himself, the
courts became prosecuting officers,
and a process Of injunction was
adopted riunous TO innocent parties.
Three convictions were allowed for a
single oifense, and informers were
stimulated by fees and shares Of fines
and all TO no purpose. lntemper-
ance and contempt of law steadily in
creased. In 1902, at the end of fifty
years, the report of the United States
Commissioner Of Internal Revenue
showed that United States license
to sell liquor was issued for every 100
voters in the state. In the fall Of 1902
"A movement was inauguerated looking
to the adoption of "A license system.
The campaign was terminated in
the overthrow of prohibition was in
many respects remarkable. Arrayed
on the side of license were the nro-
gressive elements of the state, sup
ported by men in all walks of life, Of
the best thought and highest morals
men profoundly impressed with the
futility and bad results of the law.
Arrayed with the "rohibitionists were
the elicit liquor sellers, who preferred
the unrestricted sale under prohibi-
ton to a regulated trade under Ii
Cense.
New Hampshire hdopted statutor,
prohibition in 1855. For thirty-four
years every effort was made to en-
force it, with results so far from sat
isfactory and so injurious that at a
popular election for the adontion Of
a p%rohibitory amendment to the state
constitution held April u, 1889, the
amendment was defeated by an nor
nous majority. Two counties onI.
in the entire state gave it majorities.
On March 10, 1903, the lower house
of the legislature passed a license bill
by a vote of PA to l07. A few days
later the bill passed the house by a
vote of three to one, and on March y
received executive approval and Ii
cense became the law of the state.
The cities of the state stood over
whelming for license, their vote in the
legislature being l2l to 8 in its favor.
More noteworthy isthe fact that tn
rural members, taken nseparately,
voted for license in the proportion of
" to 0. Representatives of both
political parties were also in a major
ity in favor of license.
Massachusetts tried prohibition
from 1855 to 1870. She found the
law vain and injurious, and upon the
testimony of her governors and best
citizens, fatally hurtful to the cause
of temperance. After fifteen years of
earnest trial she also repudiated the
law, and when in April, 1889, a siren
nous effort was made to again en-
graft prohibition upon the constitu-
ton of the state it filed. The farm
ing population threw its weight with
that of the cities against the amend
ment. One town only in the common
wealth gave it a majority.
The campaign was one of excep-
tional interest. The terms and time
of the fight were dictated by the pro-
hibitionists. They were ably led and
their was advocated by hun
dreds of speakers. They diluged the
state with literature and brought into
action an army of workers remark
able for its numbers. No method
known to the politician was left un-
tried in the efforts to carry prohibi-
ton.
As elsewhere, the prohibitionists
tried to make it appear that all NOR
atty was on their side, all immortality
opposed 10 them. This assumption
failed in its purpose.
The influential journals of the
State, almost to a unit are against
the amendment, exposed the fallacy
and threw their influence in behalf
of license. Profiting by the past ex-
p%erience, they fought with a vigor
born of constitution. Religious papers
joined hands with the powerful
hands with the powerful dailies, and,
making conscience of the fight, the
Christian Union, the Congregational
list and the Christian Register hurled
their thunder against the adoption of
the amendment.
Nor was the press unsupported by
the church. Many score of the most
eminent clergymen of the common
wealth, comprising the brains, the dig
nifty and the worth of the ministry of
the statae, united in the remonstran-
ces against the abortion of prohibi-
ton. Among the ministers so re-
m%onstrating were such men as Rev.
DR.. Phillins Brooks, DR.. Savage, Rev.
DR.. Brooks Hereford, Rev. DR.. Cyrus
Bartol, Rev. DR.. Peabody and the Rev.
Father Conaty, the president of the
Catholic National Total Abstinence
Society of America. and many others