The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1908-02-21
Notice to the Business
Men of Washington


The Washington Mercantile Associa-
ton is bearing the burden OF the fight
to prevent the enactment Of prohibit
ton law IN the District Of Columbia.
Such law would injure every business
interest in this city. We ask your aid
In making this fight-yOur cordial SYM
pathy and support. In order that you
may see exactly what our position Is,
we call your attention TO this memorial,
filed by us with the Board OF Commits
sioners OF the District OF Columbia. at
the recent hearing.
January 2. 1903.
To the Board OF Commissioners, Dis
trict OF Columbia:
Gentlemen: The Washington Mercan-
tile Association, composed Of taxpayers
and business men representing the oppo-
sitson TO the enactment OF any new law
on the liquor question in the District OF
Columbia respectfully beg leave to sub
nit a few reasons why, in our Judg-
ment. the Commissioners should recon-
mend that the bills referred TO them BY
Congress should not % enacted into
law:
!. There IS no need Of new or addi-
tional 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 Column
bis is a lsw-ablding, orderly commun-
ity. and abuses Ia the sale and con
sumption OF liquor have been reduced
10 a minimum under laws that have
been thoroughly tested No other city
ia the Cnited States or elsewhere has
a better record ia this respect, and no
city In any prohibition state can show
as good record.
Southern cities which contain large
negro population complain OF the preva-
lence OF crime on account OF the igno-
rant and vicious element among the
negroes. while Washington, which has
the largest negro population OF any
city in the world, is remarkably Tree
from crime. II crime among the ne
groes may be traced 20 strong drink.
as is doubtless true 81 many cases, the
comparative absence OF crime among
the neEroes IN this District IS conclusive
proof that the liquor laws here are
rigidly enforced. 1t IS common knowledge
among public men that the liquor laws
or this District are strictly enforced.
and that drunkenness Is less IN evidence
than in any o:her city IN the Union.
Why. then. should there be a change
from tested laws 10 those. which. az
best, would be experimental? Your hon
orable body. IN our opinion would be
Justified IN calling attention 70 the ad-
mirebls liquor laws Of this District. and
the manner IN which they are enforced
by the excise board. and recommending
these laws 70 other cities and communi-
ties which have tried prohibition and
found that abuses OF the liquor traffic
flourish under that system.
2 IT IS unjust and tyrannical 10 i'm
pose upon the people Of this or any
other community. without their consent,
any law aEccJiug their daily lives and
habits. 1t IS unnecessary 10 consume
time hero TO emphasize the intimate
characte. OF legislation which tries TO
deal VITA the individual habits Of men,
II men are entitled 70 liberty IN any
shape. they are entitled to liberty OF
individual choice regarding their in
diyidual tastes and habits, provided
they do not infringe upon the rights
OF others. Governments wisely make
no attempt to deal with matters or per-
sonal 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 be-
comes an injury 20 individuals or the
public Thus the law has rightly placed
liquor in the place where II belongs.
beside other articles commonly used by
mankind. which by misuse may become
injurious or dangerous. No one objects
to the laws which safeguard the use Of
liquor ana prohibit the zsuse OF IT,
But IL Is now proposed 10 go further
Rno single out liquor nlone, Of all the
articles used by man, and Throw such
legal restrictions about its use that Il
WIN be practically driven out OF exist
ence. Thus IN the aItemct 10 prevent
the abuse or liquor, II Is proposed that
the use shall be prohibited. II this
could be accomplished by law, the re-
suit would be 10 deprive many persons
or the reasonable use OF liquor, I'm order
that the few who misuse Il might be
reached. This IS nothing less than the
punishment OF all persons IN order that
a few guilty ones may be punished. II
is an illegal and arbitrary enCrOachment
upon individual rights. Yet IL IS pro-
posed that this shall be done in the Dis
Trict OF Columbia without even referring
the question to the people affected.
We believe that an attempt by law TO
prevent <ne use or liquor by persons
who do not abuse the right would be a
failure, We point to the breakdown OF
proof OF our contention. We share the
views OF such distinguished prelates as
his enninence Cardinal Gibbons and the
Ri Rev. Henry Y. Satterlee, bishop OF
washington. Cardinal Gibbons gave
out a statement on January g. reading,
in part. as follows:
II believe that the right OF the people
to determine by this operation OF local
option law whether saloons shall or
shall not be closed within their respeC-
tive communities is in harmony with the
American principle or self-gOVernment.
While do not wish TO be understood
as having in any degree changed my
opinion that IL is neither feasible nor
wise, under present conditions. 10 at
tempt prohibition throughout the whole
extent of a large city like Baltimore,
yet II the people OF & ward OF the city.
especially IN q residential section, or OF
a rural county, desire to- vote out sa-
looms. they should have the OppOrtun-
ity of 50 doing"
Cardinal Gibbons sees clearly that II
IS neither feasible nor wise to attempt
prohibition in a large city like Balti-
ttmore, and what he says applies with
equal or greater force TO Washington.
or,rfffssa