The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1908-03-16
PROHIBITION IN THE PAST.
Review of the Movement for HaIf q
Century
From the New Orleans Picayunc

From tie New Orleans PiCaTunc.
There is a notion that is being widely
propagated to the effect that the pr0hibI-
ton movement against the sale q liquors
IN several Of the States Is something en-
tirely new. and is the result Of a sudden
and almost miraculous moral wave that
Is sweeping over the country.
Such a notion is wholly erroneous. There
is nothing new IN this entire movement.
which was long ago tried with some sue
cess in several OF the Northern States. but
the experiment soon proved 20 DE a fail
ure, and was abandoned and abolished in
all except Maine. where prohibition was
introduced in 1851. and was finally incor-
porated in the constitution or that State.
A brief history OF the prohibition move
ment IS not out OF place here. Gen. Neal
Dow. Of Maine. was the father Of the So
called rising against the liquor traffic and
his efforts first met success in his own
State. Following Maine. Connecticut was
for many years prohibition State. but
on a resubmissiOn OF the question. defeat
ed prohibition by an overwhelming vote.
Illinois. which in the early SOS expert
enced prohibition in mild form. soon
tired OF it. and adopted a license law.
Iowa is no longer a prohibition State
since 1901
Massachusetts. which first adopted pro-
hibition in 1852, and later several modif-
cations of the same. finally revoked It
In 1861. and defeated a prohibition con-
stitutional amendment in 1859 by a major
ity OF $500
Michigan. which adopted prohibition in
1856. rejected 1t by an immense majority
in 1857.
Nebraska repudlated it by a large ma
jority in 1889
New Hampshire a few years ago obllter-
ated prohibition from her statute books.
Oregon in ISIS defeated a prohibition
proposition by an immense majority.
Pennsylvania defeated prohibition by an
Overwhelming majority at the ballot box.
Rhode Island. after three separate trials
OF prohibition. decided il a failure. and
rejected It by a majority Of 1900
Texas voted against prohibition BY a
majority OF $4,000.
Washington refused 10 embody a pro
hibitory law in her first constitution.
West Virginia voted a few years ago on
prohibition. and settled it with an adverse
majority OF 10000
\ few years ago Vermont repudiated
prohibition, and South Dakota in 1851
The Prohibition party came into exist
enCe in Illinois and Michigan in 1868. and
in 1S72 II nominated candidates for Presi-
dent and Vice President on a platform in
which prohibition Of the liquor traffic
was combined with the advocacy OF wo-
man suffrage. and 5.O57 votes We're cast
for the party candidates. James Black. OF
Pennsylvania, and John Russell, OF Michi-
gan Since then the Prohibition party has
regularly put UP national candidates for
the Presidential and Vice Presidential
Offices.
Kansas adopted prohibition IN 1890 and
was followed by North Dakota. They.
with Maine, constituted the prohibition
States until recently. when Oklahoma was
admitted into the Union as a prohibition
State. while Georgia and Alabama fol-
lowed stin more recently. Thus il is evil
dent that with the exception OF Maine and
Kansas, every State land they were
many which had ever tried the prohibit
ton experiment abandoned It. and the
three Southern States that have already
taken It UP are making their first trial
In most Of the States local option laws
are 10 force and they are the result OF an
which proved prohibition TO be
a failure, and demonstrated the necessity /
for some reasonable and more reliable re-
straint. Local option, taken with high
license. has proved the most successful |
method OF dealing with the liquor prob |
lem.
There are well-meaning persons who be- |
lieve that prohibition laws can make the
weak strong. the foolish wise and the
evil good. Not even Gods law can do /
that, nor do they profess 10 Ofrer more
than to declare -he right way and TO en-
courage men 70 follow Il. and 20 punish |
them for disobedience. All that human /
law can do is to surround society with
safeguards, to denounee penalties for the /
forcing and violating Of those safeguards. |
and to punish the violators.