The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1909-03-26
DILLUPS BRAND
OF PROHIBITION
A Local Minister objects to the Chief
tain's Position on the Liquor
Question.
To the Editor of the chieftain;

To the Editor of the Chieftain:
Following the discourses in the var
ious pulpits of this city last Sabbath
on "Civic Righteousness and Law En-
forcement," the Chieftain took occas-
ion editorially to characterize the
friends of prohibition in this state as
Misguided" "Ranting advocates" and
"Weaklings." Now it is really not
very nice" for the Chieftain to thus
call some quite respectable people such
uncomplimentary names; but it is only
to be remembered that bluff and fling
ing opprobrious epthets at those who
differ from one in opinion is not argu-
ment, and only tends to expose the
real weakness of the cause in which
it is done. The friends of temperance
will be none the less respected for
such obsessions.
AS for the assertions in the editor
ial made with reference to prohibition,
they are only assertions, and repres-
ent the stock arguments of the advo-
Gates of the liquor traffic; they also
exhibit either a reckless disregard for
the unimpeachable facts and statistics
obtained in all prohibition territory, or
an objectionable ignorance of these
facts, many of which have been
brought to the attention of the public
in very pronounced ways. The most
'ranting" advocates of the Billups law
have never claimed perfection for it,
neither have the advocates of prohibit
tion in any state expected it to work
miracles of self-enforcement, yet it is
patent to all who in an unbiased way
have investigated, that, despite the
odds against it. prohibition has been
quite as successfully enforced as has
many other statutes of the several
prohibition states, which have the full
favor of the public; and in Oklahoma
it has not been a failure by any means
in those places where adequate effort
has been made to carry out its pro-
visions; this too. in spite of the many
difficulties it has had to overcome. 1t
is not here claimed that no liquor has
been sold, even in the places where
honest effort has been made to en-
force the Billups law, but be it re-
membered that there is not a law on
the statute books which is not CON
stantly violated; and if prohibition is
to be decried because it is not perfect
ly obeyed, the same argument may be
made against the laws prohibiting
murder, theft, Sunday hunting, and all
the rest of our laws, for none of them
are kept absolutely. Why does not
the Chieftain animadvert against our
law prohibiting Sunday desecration? |
Does it not know of instances mani |
fold in which the first day of the week |
commonly called Sunday has been
wantonly desecrated in violation OF
the laws of God and of the state? Or
why does not it advocate the abroga
tion of the law of this state against |
theft? Has there not been in this.
and every community instances of
robbery and stealing which are in IL
rect contravention of these laws, AMI
which have not been punished? 1t is
a poor rule which won't work both
ways.
We may infer that in the opinion OF
the Chieftain, local-option would be
the panacea for all the booze ills of
this state, as it claims it has been in
many southern states; but those who
live in local option territory are just
as much beset with the protests Of the
advocates of the liquor traffic as are
those who live in Oklahoma, and other
prohibition states. with the eternal
wall which goes up anent the imagin-
ed ~vagaries" of prohibition and. 1t
may be enquired. if local option is the
only thing. why is it that so many
states, such as Maine, Kansas, and
others persist in their prohibition poll
cies when they might have under loc-
al option so much more satisfactory I
CD results. And why is it that other
states which have now local option
are making strenuous efforts to lay 1t