The Seattle Republican. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1???-1915, 1909-02-19

mind the fact that the city of Bangor,
Maine is a city of only $4,000 population.
Compare this with the city of Seattle.
Surely our reform friends won't think
this comparison unfair after what they
have already said about Seattle on this
floor. During the year 1906, with popu-
lation of 100000, or more than eight
times the population of Bangor, Maine
Seattle had 2066 arrests for drunkenness
or 321 fewer arrests in wide-open Seattle
than in prohibition Bangor. The year
1907 shows 2513 arrests in Bangor for
drunkenness and 1905 in Seattle, to carry
out the proportion, Seattle should have
25,13O arrests, or Bangor only 361 A
fair comparison, if both were in pro-
hibition states, or both in wide-open
| states. What is to be said when you
consider that Bangor is a city in the
banner prohibition state of the Union?
| In Seattle, during 1906, one arrest for
every 81 of population. (1S0,00O.)
In Bangor, during 1906, one arrest for
every of population.
In Seattle, during 1907, one arrest for
every 55 of population (200,00O).
In Bangor, during 1907, one arrest for
every of population.
In the prohibition state of Kansas
there is one retail liquor dealer for every
500 of population, while in license Mas
sachusetts there is only one retail liquor
dealer for every 525, and the state of
Washington, one for each 400.
The same thing has been true in every
state that has tried prohibition.
If prohibition in any. degree is an aid
to temperance why in the name of COM
mon sense do not its advocates cite us
some facts and figures in support of
their contention?
Why, I ask, Mr., President, do they al
ways denounce the evils of intemperance,
subject on which we are all agreed?
Why do they resort to a lot of cheap
clap trap tbout the demon rum?
Why become irrational and hysterical
on a subject over which there is no con-
tentino?
Why attempt to browbeat, intimidate
and Sundayize members of the legisla-
ture on this question?
There is but one answer to all of these
questions:
The advocates of prohibition in the
light of history can produce no other
KIND or argument.
They dare not tell you that of the
eighteen states where prohibition was
adopted between 1916 and 1905, fifteen
of them have returned to the license
lsystem, or, as our dear friends the re-
formers would say, the wide open policy.
| Will any man on the floor of this
senate have the harrihood to say that
five of the six New England states were
in favor of intemperance when they
voted down prohibition and returned to
the license system?
Remember the sober, sensible, intelli-
gent citizenship of these states were
opposed in their fight for return to the
license system by dive keepers as well
as by the prohibition fanactics; yet they
won.
When 1 have concluded my remarks,
| the gentlemen on the other side will pur-
sue the time honored custom of the advo-
Gates of prohibition. My ears will be
assailed with such remarks as 1--WE have
listened with patience to the rambling
remarks of the Senator from Thurston
in defense Of booze and the saloon ele-
ment;" or some gentleman will say, ST
am surprised that the Senator from
Thurston should have the temerity to
stand on this floor and advocate intern
perance," or, again, those who stand as
do on this question may be called, as
we have been before, the saloon element.
We will be classed as reactionaries, and
those men advocating a blue law that
has been repealed in five of the six New
England states will be spoken of in some
of the newspapers as the progressive
members of the senate.
The fact that I have stated that on
the evils of intemperance I am in full
accord with the gentlemen on the other
side will make no difference to them, or
to the people they so ably represent
the prohibition fanatic
Because do not agree with them as
to the remedy 1 am without the pale.
I will be charged with aiding the forces
of vice and intemperance in their fight
against morality and religion. The fact
that the teachings of Christ, whom they
all pretend to worship, contains no war
rant for prohibition will make no differ
ence to the fanatic.
The fact that I have quoted from some
of our greatest statesmen condemning
this kind of legislation; the fact that
have called attention to the writing and
speeches of many eminent clergymen,-
men, who from personal observation have
seen the evils of prohibition men who
themselves are among the most sincere
temperance workers on earth, will make
no difference.
These facts, I say to you, Mr.. Presi-
dent, will avail nothing with the Anti
Saloon League reformer or his dupe, the
prohibition fanatic. They must, however
have some weight with the members OF
this Senate. These are facts that can
not be brushed aside by no stronger
argument than that the Senator from
Thurston has a brewery in his district
Neither can they be brushed aside by the