The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1907-06-18
TO THE PEOPLE OF THE new
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Your Attention Respectfully Called II Accurate History Of the
Prohibition Movement in America
History Of the

the past tw utytwo years having adopted them
IN 1882. Tnat they are ineffective IS demonstrated
by the open saloons and secret joints in AL the
towns and cities of the State That they are detri
mental to the welfare Of the state IS proved by
the depression in her commercial. manufacturing
aud Industrial enterprises, and by the enormous
tax rates prevalent ranging from four to eight per
cent That they have not been beneficial to the
moral tone OF the State is eylnced by the fact that
thousands of the best men OF the State earnestly
advocated tho overthrow OF the law.
An effort made in 1887 TO put prohibition
into the Constitution Of Texas and failed by a ma
iority of 92,G61.
A few months later a similar effort was made
IN Tennessee, and was likewise overwhelmed by
a majority of 27693.
In the fall of the same year Oregon submitted
a prohibitory amendment which shared similar
fate felly two-thirds of the voters of the State
casting theii 0aots against IT,
In November 1883. West Virginia voted on
the question. The subject was thoroughly discus
sed, Investigations into the workings of the law
IN other states We're carefully made.and a full vote
was polled. resulting In the defeat Of the amend
ment by a majority of 35574. Only two counties
In the state gave prohibition majortics
North Dakota adopted prohibition in 1889 by
a scant majority Of l,l59. The experience of the
State has beer the usual one The law has not
been enforced. The sale of liquors has in no way
diminished, and the only effect has been ne sub
stituton OF the unlicensed, irresponsible secret
Joint for the open. regulated saloon. movement
is on foot looking to the overthrow of the law
South Dakota also adopted prohibition IN 1889
by a majority OF 5.724. Every possible means con
troed by The State were exhausted i'm am ilnavail.
ing effort 10 enforce the law. This could not be
done. and, without decreasing the sale OF nui,ors
number IF serious evils sprang up as an out
growth of lhe law The development of the state
which had been phenomenal during tho Ten years
prior to the adoption OF the measure was brought
to q standsiii AT the fall election Of 1896 proh
biion was overwhelmingly rejected and the state
retained ia license system
II will thus be seen that during The past half
CCnturV eiphtppu States hnNp ha aV,
OF prohibitions Fifteen of these States nave re-
pudated Il as an utter fai,pre. Five OF the States
thus repudiating II have overwhelmingly rejected
attempts to fOist Il on them a second time Three
States only retain Il. In none OF these is II en-
forced Five other States prolting by the expert
ence OF sister Commonwealths have refused to ac
eept it al all. II experience and history have any
value, these facts ought to be conclusive that pro
hibltion Is neither practicable desirable fro =
either q moral or material standpoint
The experience OF communities which have
tried local prohibition or local option dne~s IN no
way from that of the States which have tsied pro.
hibition Il has uniformly failed to prohibit and
brought In its wake a long train of attendant evils
and disaster From 500 10 1903 ,S53 commun
ties have voted on the subject OF local option In
$40 Of these communities local option was de-
feated by approximately two-lhrds vote In
the remaining l,343 communities local option car
ried by fair majOrtles in the first instance. In
few OF these communities elections have been
held frequently, with results alternating between
license and local option.
In force but in few. If any, is there any real en-.
forcement while the towns have suffered seyerly
in many ways from the effects of the measure.
In 75l communities In which at the first elec-
tion local option carried il has since been defeat
ed. the communities beins satisfied by experience
that it was a failure The aggregate majorties IN
favor of local option in all such communities at
the first election on the subject was los 942 The
aggregate maiorities for license in the same com.
munties when. local option was repudiated was
1861
Notable among the communities adopting To-
cal option was the city of Atlanta In less than
two years this city 100 Of It's houses vacant
It's debt enlarged its taxes increased and DRINK
more rotcus than had before been
known. with the promptness that the case de-
manded the city repudiated the law in November
1881 by majority which left little hope of ever
again imposing Il upon her people
Prohibition has been more successful in
Clnada than in the United States. few years
auo a law passed similar to those in force in
The States OF the Union, and was given a sincere
and earnest trial In April 1889, # repealed
Every town and city in Csnada which voted OF
that day rejected prohibition.
Thomas Jefferson knew human nature wher
he saidN @rell any man he shall not do a thinf
or have Thing, aEd that thing becomes Inc very
one which he wishes 10 do or have" The fruit o.
only one tree in the Garden Of Eden was forbidden
yet Adam and Eve ate OF that tree.
Prohibition and Government Stamps
IN any controversy the best proof thar can b.
offered is facts. and the best facts are those tha
come llDnl iHfnutibNhIAiNlt Nkdtalitnt ill' ihh7
reliable statistics concerning public affairs ar
those compiled by the federal government be
cause the federal government has no incentive
fasify rs records aud has abundant means to en
ploy expert highly qualified men 10 do ts work
The statement is.Jnade constantly cyeryWher
In Oklahoma that constitutional prohibition is Oh
only desirable way 20 regulate the liquor traffic
iid that Oklahoma should have constitutions
prohibition. The State OF Kansas IS offered /
support of this demand, the claim being made fha
constitutional prohibition IN Kansas Is a success
The number Of places where liqeor is sol
IN a state Is equal IN almost every case 70 "a
number Of ngaor licenses issued by the feder
government No persons legally can retat llquc
without a fednra lrensa aHd lnOwne nov rig
ly internal reVenpc offcera inforce the law, quC
I dealers fear TO run fhe risk Of engaging IN bus
ness without q federal license II prohibition
as successful Is claimed by rs advocates. hei
world be comparatively Few federal liquor licei
ses Issued IN a prohih lion State.
Wnat are he ACTUAL facts concerning be sr
e. - prohibition 10 Kansas For the year en-
ing June 30 1906, the internal revenue collect,
an Le4yenworih issued ia the prohibition state
kansas 3f25 federal licenses to retail liquor dea
eis and 59t licenses t-setdil malt liquor dealer
foi the same period only 1855 federal Licenses