East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1908-05-21

conclusions which would seem to set
tie decisively the moral side of the
question:
almost every sort of liquor legis-
latiOn creates some specific evil In
politics"
Legislation TO secure the ends of
prohibition intensifies political dissen-
siOns, incites to social strife and
abridges the public sense of self-re-
specting liberty
1T cannot be positively affirmed
that any one kind of liquor legisla-
any other i'm pormOting real temper
ance."
So much for the greater moral
evils that attend prohibition and tes-
tify significantly that it is by no
means good for the state" 1 have
said nothing of the secret drinking,
the addiction to baneful drugs, the
crime-breeding pseakies- and similar
nameless dives, the special crop of
evils for the individual and the home,
which are equally chargeable to pro-
hibition. These are indeed known
of all men and ask no commentary.
Now as to the material side of the
question, "Is prohibition good for the
state?" This in truth is even easier
to answer and claims a more emphat-
ic negative. A very few facts and
figures will suffice to establish our
position.
It is of course, to be taken for
granted that the state is not indiffer-
ent to is material prosperity or to any
conditions injuriously affecting the
same. Such a condition is brought
about speedily and infallibly under
prohibition. The North American
Review" a conservative authority,
says on this point:
''The states of the union, without
exception, which have adopted pro-
hibitory laws, either I'm whole or Ia
part, have either experienced a ma
terial decrease in their population, or
have fallen very far behind the other
states in their growth.
'In nine hundred and six towns To-
Gated in 33 different states, six hun
dred and fortyfour of them under
prohibition or local option laws and,
Of course, legally permittin no IL
quor to be sold in them, the average
tax rate on each 800 of valuation in
1902 was s243 in the prohibition
towns, and s1.59 in the towns where
liquor is permitted. The average,
therefore, was SO per cent higher in
the prohibition than in the licensed
towns. A similar investigation gives
like results as to rents and real es-
tate values in such localities"
North, south, east and west, wher-
ever prohibition gets a foothold, the
immediate and certain results are IN
creased taxes, stagnation of business
and decline Of local prosperity. In
crease of population Is conceded to be |
good for the state" Well, Maine is
the Oldest the banner prohibition |
state. Her population in 1860 was
21.2 to the square mile; 80 years later
1t was 21.7. How is that for prohi-
bition?
Is pauperism good for the state?"
Sparsely populated Maine, "all dry"
at least in theory, has. 1853 out Of
every 100000 of its people living in
almshouses, while thickly populated
license New Jersey has only "a in the
same proportion.
So we begin to see that the tangible,
material fruits Of prohibition are loss
OF population, economic ruin and mis-
cry, pauperlsm, discontent and crime.
None Of these things is, however,
good for the state" and in all Of
them the prohibition states have
achieved the head Of the column.
Finally. prohibition deprives the
state OF enormous revenue by which
many public institutions OF social,
charitable and educational utility are
This revenue cannot 9TH
srwise be supplied without working