The Columbus journal. (Columbus, Neb.) 1874-1911, 1908-07-29

where there would be q saloon under
license. the business being outlawed.
the licensed saloon has been succeed
ed by Q bunch of worthless blindpig-
gers or boOt-leGgers, who are satisfied
to sell vile stuff for profit Of . couple
Of dollars q day, with an occasional
rest in the county Jail II necessary to
their business.
Drugstore Saloons.
Another cause Of tie preponder-
ance of federal liquor licenses in this
state over South Dakota ia the multi
plicity of one-horse drug stores, there
being at least three times rs many
drug stores in this state as there is
legitimate business for. Still, I think
it will be . long time before prohibi-
ton will be taken from our organic
law, for the reason that the drinkers.
being able to get their booze shipped
in from across the state line In either
Of four directions, do not bother them
selves as to whether or not so-called
prohibition prevails in this state.
Going about the state and talking
with the people. you would think that
a majority Of them we're for 1t: but !.
is q sort Of standing joke among the
drinkers here to laud prohibition.
have published paper in this (Em-
mons) county since 1884. part of the
time under license and part under pro-
hibition. and flnd little difference as
to the amount of liquor drunk. Those
who were drunkards under license are
drunkards under prohibition. can
see no change. But II Nebraska
wants to put a premium on hypocrisy
and violation Of law. she should at
once follow in the footsteps of North
Dakota. In this state, were there
a federal law preventing the inter
state carriage of whisky. wine and
beer to all but druggists, and the
druggists permit to sell were taken
away by the legislature. we would be
tumbling over one another to get un-
der the license banner.
you are at liberty to use my let
ter. I have never been disposed 10 |
hide my light under a bushel in the
matter of opposition to the prohibi- |
ton law. I have published a paper |
In this county twenty four years, and |
am firmer in the belief each sue.
ceeding year that prohibition by stat
ute or in the organic law il one of |
the most costly and useless make
shifts that could be put into the code
Dr. constitution. l opposed 1t when
In this state it was adopted by q
vote-that is, BY I 100 odd
votes. with $500 failing to find the
on the big Australian bal
lot, most Of such voters being Ger
mans and Russians who would have
Toted against prohibition.
In the last two sessions Of the
over house of the North Dakota
General Assembly introduced resub-
mission bills only to have them beaten
~ q two-thirds vots-the prohibition
'ote coming chiefly from the eastern
'art Of the state In the Red River Val
ey. where alcohol Is the chief bever-
lge."
Figures From oMIcial Record.
Up to February l, 1907. 1.64S fed
raj liquor licenses had been issued In
Sorth Dakota. compared with 1929
q South Dakota. There we're 319
more federal liquor licenses issued IN
his state than In South Dakota.
When 1t Is remembered that North
dakota is . prohibition state. while
;Outh Dakota Is q high license state.
he showing is apparently Q very bad
ne. for North Dakota.
North Dakota. with q population of
81. 07O souls, consumes annually about
!. 100000 worth of intoxicating liquors
4 utter defiance Of law.