Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1907-05-10
Random Shot from Radical Reformer.
1t is noted from extended refer

Random Shot from Radical Reformer.
1t is noted from extended refer
ence of the Orrgoninw that Kew.
Irwin S. Chapman, d. D.. who has
been the past nine years Superinten-
dent of the Anti-SalOOn League of
Southern California. and is now SUI
perintendcnt for that State in the
same line of work in Oregon, de-
livcrcd an address at the Taylor
street NJ. f.. Church. Portland, Sun
day night. in which he devoted his at
tention specially to the liquor traffic
in Portland,
Now it is fair to expect that an
advocate who has devoted so much
attention to a subject should be well
enough informed to he fair in dis
cussiun and accurate in statement of
facts. But it seems otherwise. Mr..
Chapman claimed that the licensing
of sale of spiritual liquors was uncOn-
stitutional, and further that it had
been declared SO by decision of the
U. S. Supreme Court. If that be
true. how has that same tribunal
by implication, recognized the right
to regulate, license and control the
liquor traffic, by State and local
law, placing it in the same cate
CORY of "slaughter-pens and other
public nuisances," as temperance adj
vocates have SO long taken pleasure
in affirming? If it indeed be uncon-
stitutional" to license, why so late as
1876 did Henry w. Blair in the U. S.
House of Representatives introduce
a resolution for amendment to the
Federal Constitution to prohibit the
manufacture or sale after 1900 of dis
titled alcoholic intoxicating liquors?
Why has the demand to prohibit, if
license of sale was in violation of the
Federal constitution, been SO inces-
SAINT as to require the poll of quite a
vote at each succeeding Presidential
election, up to 25S, 536 votes for Silas
c. Swallow, in 1904? Why, if license
is unconstitutional and is condemned
by decision of the higher court, does
the traffic continue?
Common sense should control in
this matter as in all others. An OBJ
ject lesson has been afforded by abol-
ishment of the canteen at army head
quarters. After several years of trial
the fight to ills that we knew not
of, has made all thinking and honest
people to favor its restoration in nit
igation of an accumulation of evils
that Immediately followed. This
opinion found expression among NOR
alists of all classes, including many
who had been active temperance ad-
vOcateS.
That popular experience has con-
demned absolute prohibition has been
demonstrated by trial in many of the
States. Illinois enacted prohibition
in 1855, but repudiated it at the polls
the same year. New York had passed
a law the previous year, tried it for
two years and gave it up. Massachu-
sets tried prohibition for Is years
and repealed the law, and an effort
to restore the enactment was voted
down April IL, 1889. Atlanta, Ga,
tried the law year and repudiated
it on Nov. 1887. Connecticut enacted
the law, tried in vain to enforce it for
18years, and repealed it in 1872. Ohio
enacted prohibition in 1866 and after
q few months experience repealed it.
Maryland passed prohibition law
in 1855, but after a short trial it was
repealed and the question has never
since been raised in the State. New
Hampshire tried prohibition for "a
years. and April II, 1889, an effort
was made to incorporate it into her
constitution, but was voted down,
only two counties giving a majority
in favor. A prohibitory law was
twice passed in Wisconsin, and twice
vetoed by the Governor supported
by the people. Rhode Island made q
trial in 1853 and after ten years trial
repudiated thelaw. Michigan passed
the law in 1853 and abandoned it in
1875. Indiana and Nebraska, in
1855 passed prohibitory enactments,
but neither kept the measure on their
statute books q great length of time.
Indiana voted again on the question
in 1882 and the amendment was de-
feated by the largest majority cast
in the State for twenty years. Texas
cast %, 900 majority against the effort
to place a prohibitOry clause in her
constitution. An effort to introduce
the law in Tennessee was abandoned
after thorough discussion. Oregon
submitted the amendment in 1887,
but it was overwhelmingly defeated.
In November, the next year, West
Virginia, after much discussion and
investigation Of experiments in other
States, defeated amendment three to
one. In June 1889, Pennsylvania and
Rhode Island voted on amendments,
but it was largely adverse. In Iowa
prohibitory amendment was an
ulled. Kansas and Maine are the only
States who retain prohibition, but
without any claim that it is abso-
lutely effective.
Most of the States have adopted
local option as substitute for pro-
hibition, and placed licenses at q fig.