Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1907-03-16

The speaker showed that there were
319 more licenses in this state, a pro-
hibition state, than in South Dakota
which was not prohibition state.
In closing the speaker contended that
the system offered by the negative
could be applied universally while the
prohibition system could not. The
Ispeaker feared that the prohibition
system would not work well in such
cities as Chicago, Milwaukee and New
York, but might do all right in rural
districts.
The last speaker for the affirmative
in the opening address was Miss Maud
lWyant, who presented remarkably
strong argument for the Affirmative,
and delivered it in a pleasing manner.
The speaker said in part: Prohibition
lis preferable to the Gothenberg sys-
tenn since 1t works toward ultimate
elimination and the Gothenberg sys-
tenn does not It is the purpose and
duty Of law not only to regulate pres
lent evils, but to strive for the ultimate
elimination of these evils. Any sys-
tenn which has not this end in view
utterly fails as a remedy for the liquor
problem. First, prohibition is the
only morally right course since 1t. is
the only course in which the govern
ment does not compromise with crime.
| Under the Gothenberg system the gov
Iernment protects the men who are en-
Gagged in the liquor business, shares
in its profits and puts the stamp Of
approval on its business of making
drunkards. 5
Secord, prohibition is more effective
lin educating public sentiment against
the liquor traffic since the prohibitory
law brands it asscrime while the Goth
enberg law makes it respectable. It
Lis the so-called respectable moderate
drinker and the so-called respectable
drinking place, that will do the most
for the continuance OF the drink habit.
Third, prohibition, makes for Ultimate
prohibition fimvid cfih etaoin etaoinn
illumination, since it removes tempta-
ton and the idea that drinking is re-
Espectable from the young Herein lies
Tour nations greatest hope Of doing
away with the drink habit We can,
not expect to reform the drunkard
The blind pig has no a1lurements for
young people (quoting Judge Pol,
lock- Prohibition partially enforced
is better than the Gutenberg system
! perfectly enforced in the cause of Ill
innate elimination. n
Fourth, the Gothenberg system can.
not achieve elimination because. its
aim is merely regulation. Any sys,
tenn can rise no higher than its aim
1t does not aim to eliminate, it never
can eliminate, and id this fact it ut.
terly fails as remedy for the liquor
problem. 355 8
The debate for the negative was
sEclosed by Miss Mary bennington
Miss Bennington has good stage
presence, and her words had the ring
of sincerity The speaker said in
part 'tWe have shown that as a
4 law and particularly as liquor law
4 prohibition is farce and failure
4 wish to show you that a law based
on Gothenberg system answers to the
4 requirements of what law should
i be, that it is right In principle, sec
ond that it can be enforced, ana
third, that it has great educatiye
q value.
In the first place a law based or
4 the Gothenberg system is practical
q It was devised to meet conditions al
4 they exist and 1t had met those con
8 ditions in actual practice. Also it ii
a law that gives each community
Il what it wants. In fact we are com
pairing two systems of local option
Under prohibition, each communit,
q decides regardless Of the state Law
8 whether ii viii have liquor Or not
/, Under the Gothenberg system. nj
community has q dispensary unless !
majority of the people want it. It il
/ In reality q choice between blind pig
and 4 wellreg nlated dispensary al
!. SO, the law we defend is not limited
I in its efficiency to rural districts, Blu
I is usually applicable to any part o
Europe or America.
"a law such as we defend tonigh
lean be enforced and hence reduce
) the consumption Of liquor The sys
tenn reduces the liquor consumed b.
reducing the places where 1t is sol,
n to q minimum and by making thes
places uninvitfng. According to GOV
!, eminent statistics showing the fed
eral loauor licenses in force In 1885,
South Carolina had one place wher
. t,r,Id fS,,. xxyx1,srr q Qfl(t