Arizona republican., 1908-04-27

Conclusion: Temperance people be-
 lieve that prohibition will prohibit. Is
 there anything the matter with either
 the premises or the conclusion? Lis ten to another thought that shows that some persons believe in prohibi- ton. How many people in our coun- try in 1870 were living under prohib- itory laws? I will tell you. Just about three millions of people. How many people in our country are today living under prohibitory laws? Thirty-three
 millions of people. My authority for
 that statement Is Arthur Brisbane who writes for secular magazine and is | by no means a rabid prohibitionist as some say of certain temperance men. Now, think of the facts. While the population of this country was being
 multiplied by two and One-half the number of people living under prohib- itOry laws has been multiplied by elev- en. and all this too when those who were coming to our country to swell the population were coming from coun-
 tries where prohibition is not believed in. Think of it. Since 1870 the num- Der of people living under prohibitory laws has increased from three mil
 lions to thirty three millions. Surely
 it is marvellous. You can not believe that without believing that temper
 ance people believe in prohibition.
 Yes. and I believe just as truly that the liquor people believe that prohibit ton prohibits. The very attitude that they assume toward the prohibtory laws is proof of the fact. Let us put it ! in the same syllogistic form. Premise
 the first: Men generally work for that which is to their interests. Premise
 the second: The saloon men and li- quor dealers are rising early in the morning and going to bed late at night to see how they can overcome the pos sibility of the enactment of prohibitory laws. Conclusion: The liquor people think that prohibition prohibits. If
 the saloon keepers believed that more whisky is used when there are prohib | itory laws. they would be working with Us, and I submit it as reason- able conclusion. You might look for a
 unanimous voting out O. the saloon 1 from MaricODa county next Saturday. If the- think that without the pay
 ment of a one thousand dollar license l fee they can sell more liquor than they can by paying it. isn't it reasonable to | believe that they would rather have the prohibitory law?s
 But here is another argument that | you are hearing and reading today
 put out by the liquor people: IL will destroy the business of the town; the city and community can not possibly afford to do away with the saloon ] from a financial standpoint. am sup posing that that statement is made in | all seriousness. I believe that many people think that statement to be true. I believe that that argument is mak- | ing more votes thaN any other argu-
 ment that is presented by the friends
 of the saloon for its continuance. and yet it is absolutely false. First, it is not self-proving proposition. It is not a self-evident truth. A self-evi- dent truth is one that carries it's own
 evidence on the very face of it. That | two and two make four is d self-evi- dent truth to the mathematician, but when a man says it ruins business to do without the saloon. he is not giving me a self-evident truth. Didn't you, and didn't l, and didn't every man in | this community hear it said just few | months ago that if this community.
 this city. dared to vote gambling out of the town. it would ruin us financial ly? That in two months after such a law was passed, we would be in the deadest town in the whole southwest? But the people registered their con- victiOn. and the decision was against gambling; the law was passed; the law was enforced: and the gambling stopped in Phoenix. The financial
 furry came last fall and believe that Continued on page 5)