The Washington herald., 1908-02-20


vent the enactment OF prohibition law
in the District OF Columbia. Such q Law
would injure every business interest in
this city We ask your aid in making
this fght-yOur cordial sympathy and
support IN order that you may see
exactly what our position is. we call your
attention 20 this memorial. fled by US
with the Board OF Commissioners Of the
District OF Columbia. az the recent hear
ing
January p. 1908
To the Board Of Commissioners. District
OF Columbia:
Gentlemen: The Washington Mercantile
Association. composed Of taxpayers and
business men representing the opposition
to the enactment Of any new law on
the liquor question in the District OF Co
lumbia. respectfully beg leave to submit
a few reasons why. in our judgment. the
Commissioners should recommend that
the bills referred to them by Congress
should not be enacted into law:
l. There is no need Of new or addi-
tioual liquor legislation The people Of
the District do not demand any new laws
They are satisfied with the laws that now
exist. The District Of Columbia is a law
abiding. orderly community, and abuses
in the sale and consumption OF liquor
have been reduced 70 a mlnimam under
laws that have been thoroughly tested.
No other city in the United States or
elsewhere has a better record in this re-
spect, and no city in any prohibition State
can show as good a record.
Southern cities which contain large ne
gro population complain OF the preva-
lence Of crime on account OF the ignorant
and vicious element among the negroes.
while Washington. which has the largest
negro population Of any city in the world,
is remarkably free from crime. II crime
among the negroes may be traced 10
strong drink, as is doubtless true IN
many cases. the comparative absence OF
crime among the negroes in this District
is conclusive proof that the liquor laws
here are rigidIy enforced II is common
knowledge among public men that the
liquor laws Of this District are strictly
enforced, and that drunkenness IS less
in evidence than In any other city in
the Union. Why, then, should there be
a change frora tested laws 20 those, which
al best would be experimental Your
honorable body. in our opinion. would be
justified IN calling attention 70 the ad-
mirabie liquor laws Of this District. and
the manner in which they are enforced
By the excise board. and recommending
these laws 10 other cities and commUni-
ties which have tried prohibition and
found that abuses Of the liquor traffic
flourish under that system.
?. II is unjust and tyrannical 20 impose
upon the people OF this or any other COM
mUnity. without their consent. any law
affecting their daily lives and habits Il
is unnecessary 70 consume time here 10
emphasize the intimate character Of leg
islatiOn which tries 10 deal with the in
dividual habits OF men. II men are en-
titled 10 liberty in any shape. they are en-
titled 10 the liberty Of individual choice
regarding their individual tastes and hab-
It's, provided they do not infringe upon
the rights OF others Governments wisely
make no attempt 10 deal with matters OF
personal habit. except in the way Of re-
straining one person from infringing upon
the rights Of another. Laws have been
enacted covering all cases IN which the
sale or consumption Of liquor becomes
an injury 10 individuals or the public
Thus the law has rightly placed nquOl
in the place where il belongs, beside 9th
er articles commonly used by mankind
which by misuse may become injurious
or dangerous No one objects 10 the laws
which safeguard the use Of liquor anC
prohibit the abuse OF H.
But il is now proposed 10 go further and
single out liquor alone. Of all the articles
used by man, and throw such legal re-
strictions about its use that IL viii bs
| practically driven out OF existence. Thus
I In the attempt 10 prevent the abuse O.
/ liquor. il is proposed that the use shall
BE- prohibited II this could be accom-
! plshed by law, the result would be 10 de
prive many persons Of the reasonable use
Of liquor, in order that the few who mis-
use il might be reached. This is nothing
| less than the punishment of all person.
! in order that a few guilty ones may bg
| punished. 1t is an Illegal and arbitrary
encroachment upon individual rights. Yet
/ il is proposed that this shall be done il
/ the District Of Columbia without ever
/ referring the question 70 the people al
tected.
We believe that an attempt by law tC
I prevent the use Of liquor by persons who
do not abuse the right would be a fail
ure We point 10 the breakdown Of pro
hibition laws in all large cities as proof
Of our contention. We share tie views Of
such distinguished prelaJes as his cmi
nence Cardinal Gibbons and the RI Rev
| Henry Y. Satterlee. Bishop OF Washing
ton. Cardinal Gibbons gave out state
ment on January Is. reading in part as
| follows:
Il believe that the right Of the peOpl,
| ticn law whether saloons shall or shall
not be closed within their respective com
mGnities is in harmony with the Ameri
can principle Of self-governmeut-
While l do not wish to be understood
as having in any degree changed my opin
| ION that II is neither feasible nor wise
/ under present conditions. to attempt pro
/ hibitiOn throughout the whole extent OF
a large city like Baltimore. yet il the
people Of a ward Of the city. especially
IN a residential section. or OF a rura
should have the opportunity Of so doing
Cardinal Gibbons sees clearly that il Is
| neither feasible nor wise 70 attempt pro
/ hibition in a large city ike Baltimore
and what he says applies with equal o'
| greater force 20 Washington. which has z
PERMITS WOODEN ASH CANS