The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1909-06-14
AGAINST PROH|DITORY LAW
Mr.. Rose in His Friday Night Lecture,
Gives the Reasons for His
Opposition.

negatives the theory of free moral
agency and which establishes men
tors for my personal conduct which l
would regulate 10 conform to my
own tastes and desires and happi.
meas and which l may DO, " let
alone. without trespaHsinf upon the
rights q others
do not like prohibition because u
is At direct variance with the basic
principles Of our governmental inati-
tuiions In that It inyades the natural
and civil liberty Of the Individual
and because will never consent
that the smalles, fraction OF that
liberty shall be destroyed need
lvssiy
do not like prohibition because
Il breeds Hypocrisy and diarsHpeet
for the laws u our country.
do not like prohibition because
IT. practical operation will result In
ruthless eonftscatlon Of properties
acquired within the spirit and sane
tity q the protection Of the hw and
without returning adequate eompcn-
aatioh Tor the value o. tho property
destroyed
do not like prohibition because u
would strike down revenues ahse-
iuiely needed for governmental pur.
poses and without returning any
adequate consideration for the iass.
IN treasure. In Improvement u NOR
ais Or in promoting the general
welfare
regard this question a. a great
economic question that appeals with
potential urgency 10 tho material.
The Industrial and the moral sood
q the nation and 20 tho happiness
ot our people And surely you wiii
agree that any question u such deep
significance Is deserving of being
considered and discussed aud De.
tcrmined BY all the laws d rrasea
and eommon sense rather than BY
passion and prejudice and asnii.
msnt
This wave o. ssnsationaiiam and
fadieaIism that has been swesplns
over the land is like the blight u
pesiilenee that rides posting On the
winds leaving emily dssoiation In its
wake. II Is not new. nor IA It
without precedent for more than
half century aFo. In the decade
from 1880 10 1859. " Of the states
q the Union were under prohibl-
iion
assert It to be a iruism that pro.
hibitien does not. never ala and
never sill prohibit. unless per.
chance divine power shall sst the at
tributes o. human nature At cans
firt between themselves and trans
form them to something very AT
fefent from what they are.
But TO assert fact Will not suf-
flee unless We 20 further and sub-
stanliaie The fact ny proofs that viii
be accepted a. sufficient by the
popular mind. and 90 ! propose to
prove. BY evidence indispntabie. that
my assertion Is literally and uneon-
trovertibiy true
said that n states were under
prohibition. OF the original number
only two remain true TO tho heresy
The states Of Maine and Kansas.
Al Of the others tried II and
failed and in final disgust nban-
donsd the plan a. Impractical
All q the New England states
had prohibition. likewise Now York
and New Jersey. rennsyivania. ohio.
Michigan. Indiana. Illinois and Wis
conEiH. In the three states last
names the courts held their PROFIT
billion laws unconstitutional, Tor one
reason or another. Michigan had Il
from 1885 10 1915
The ohio inhibition was never re-
peaied. but Il sliii IN force even unto
this day and with what RESULT ohio
has the mdaf Ubiquitous system In
tho whole wide country. The com
atitution does not prohibit manu-
farturc or sale. but prohibits the
granting q licenses Tor selling To
escape the constitution. 10 thwhft
and defeat II the Legislature re-
sorted TO every species of contemp-
tible cxpedianry and every attempt
was rendered nbaftive through the
Intervention Of the supreme court
To-day We find an anomalous oOndi-
tl0n Of affairs In the Buckeye state
We find Constitutional prohibit
tlon Of granting licenses 10 sell and
county option Law IN force hT
which counties may decide whether
inioxlcants shall be sold AZ all. "
this county optiau scheme | will
speak later. In ohio any person
reputable or dlsreputnhle. may on
gage "a the business u selling In
toficantH without license BY paying
the tax II 81 900 per year and The
proceeds Of this tax are divided boz
tween the state the county and the
city. The state will not accept
and this Il the conslatenoy which
rhafueteflzeH every attempt to nr-
compliah by lndifection what can
not be done directly
The fruit Of this inlnuity II the
dirreputable saloon. which casts lts
blight not only upon the society
hut upon the traffic In general
Every attempt 10 repeal the con-
Ntltutlnual provisions has met with
the determined, stubborn resistance
of the Pfohihitioniat who will not
compromise even upon The basis
Of decency and popular advantage,
but, standing upon the letter u
the bond. heartieHAly demands the
pound II flesh
And thus, M first lesson, we
have the instructive experience Of
6 saf the sovereign states u this
nation siatea that reflect IN ofuls
nent degree the Intelligence the IN
teErlty and the COINCIDENCE Of this
nation May we not profit by that