Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1909-07-30

Lovett said: "No effort against the
saloon can ever succeed that have
not for their ultimate aim national
treatment of the question. Local
and state measures for restriction,
regulation, or suppression are not
sufficient In restricting the traffic
notice must be taken Of such kim
dred evils as gambling, prostitution,
etc., which furnish a ground for and
encouragement to the drink evil.
Crime gains strength through NUT
ual alliances.
abolition of the element of pri-
vate profit, by state and dispensary
systems, has been helpful in some
cases, though it has by no means
solved the problem or secured the
abolition Of intemperance.
"The theory of public profit
through license fees, is today rest
ing on very uncertain premises and
arguments. The custom of taxing
the traffic and issuing a license grew
out of the unusual exlgencies of the
American civil war, when the ma
tional government was forced to ex-
pediepts without calm consideration
of future results. Now, that the Gus
tom has become established, there
are not wanting advocates for it's
financial benefit to che local. state
and national governments. On the
other hand, a large class of careful
students declare without reserve
that, while the direct present in
come in license and revenue fees
means ready cash, in the end the in
direct results of thus giving legal
sanction to the saloon are wholly
evil and far outweigh the direct re-
ceipts. For every dollar Of appar-
ent profit in tax receipts, it is said,
there is an enforced expenditure by
the state of several dollars for the
maintenance of jails, courts, police
systems, warehouses;, asylums, hos
pitfalls, etc., which are the fruitage
of the open saloon. No money ever
spent over bar ever brings real
profit to any community.
"Complexity of responsibility for
the traffic IS today recognized as
never before. Not only the retailer
and the customer are intimately
concerned with the business, but
many other classes in society. Some
have carelessly pushed the RESPONSE
bility over on ''the government" Of
ten a very visionary quantity. In
this land the people are, at least in
principle, the government, and as
such every voting citizen shares in
the responsibility. Engaged in the
traffic, directly or Indirectly, be-
sides the retailer, are the manufac-
turer and the wholesaler. 1t IS un-
just to condemn one and spare the
other. Back of the manufacturer
is the stakeholder, who often sits
high in the counsels of men, even in
the Christian church, and whose
profits cannot fail to influence his
attitude. In addition are those who
grow the raw materials and expect
therefrOm a profit, the transporter
ton companies and many more.
What can be said of the owners
of buildings used by the business,
Of newspapers that advertise it and
that must settle the delicate ques-
ton of their editorial position, or
of the Christian ministers in whose
churches are represented the "bus-
mess interests which often demand
silence on this question? On the bust
ness side it is significant today that
the most insistent condemnation of
all drinking of beverage liquors
comes from the great railway and
other corporations, which have
learned that in these stressful days
only total abstinence can be the rule
among their employees. i
To-day also we are recognizing
the broad economic, industrial and
social aspects of the problem and are |
giving to it more scientific study.
Professor F. G. Peabody, in Jesus
Christ and the Social Question:
says: More and more it has become
evident that, beyond these specific
agencies of" reform, there are on
every side of the temperance question
influences and movements which are
among it's threatening enemies or it's
most powerful allies. Domestic, eco
nomic, even psychological and racial
conditions are intimately correlated
with the problem of drink. Is it
drink which destroys the family, or
is It the disordered family which
tempts to drink? Is the drink habit
a morbid passion. or is it in many