Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1909-10-22
PLAIN WORDS.
Let Us Consider With Candor the Matter
of Local Option.

OI Local upton.
YELM. Wash, Oct. II. '09.
kD. STANDARD:
| assume that every citizen should
take an active interest in all pOliti-
cal questions that affect this moral.
physical and political welfare, as well
as that of his fellow man. The ques-
ton OF local option, or prohibition,
both vultures born from the same
egg, is assuming alarming proper
tions, and, like the Roly holers"
and Jolly bumpers leading men
and women to factional extremes.
lt seems to me that sentient beings
should not jump at conclusions too
hastily, but ought to give all sub
jects due consideration before cast
ing their vote on any proposition.
If prohibition has been productive of
good, let us have it by all means, for
it is the good things we are after.
But has it? Can any temperance
agitator point to one single benefit
resulting from prohibitary laws ?
Have they not almost universally
been productive of diScord, conten-
tion and bitter feeling? Does it not
foster hypocrisy and invite evasion
and deceit in the people? Has it
ever prohibited the use of liquor :?
Have the prohibs ever suggested
anything to take the place of the sa-
loon? The speak easy" boot
Logger blind pig and the club
room are the outgrowth of prohibi-
tion. People do things surrepti-
tiously that they would otherwise do
openly. 1t is wrong to pass q law
which will destroy or confiscate
property, reduce the revenues of the
State, increase taxation, take the
money of the people and send it
abroad, foment discord instead of
promoting peace, and impair the
dignity of the commonwealth. The
assertion is often made that untold
thousands yearly 60 down to drunk
ards graves in the United States.
If this assertion is in any cOnsidera-
bic degree founded on fact it de-
serves grave consideration. In this
connection, therefore, two inquiries
are of prime Importance, first. to
what extent is this assertion true,
and second, what effect has prohibi-
tiOn, after sufficient trial, had on the
death-rate caused by the abuse of al
coholic stimulants? The only avail
able source of information on the
subject is the Census reports of the
United States. On page of Bulle-
tin S3 of the census of 1900 is found
Il list of the diseases or causes princi-
pallv responsible for deaths. Refer
ring to the tables of minor causes OF
death, on pages 8 and "a of same Bull
letin, we find mention of alcohol as q
cause of death. From the table be-
ginning on the latter page we find
the following:
Total number OF deaths in the United
States in 1900
From all causes es...........l ,034 ,O94
FROM alcohol. ................. 2,Sll
The number of deaths from drink
was. therefore. instead of untold
thousands" 2,S11 or about one and
onefourth per cent of the total num-
Der. We also find that in the same
year we had:
From railroad accidents ........ .930
From burns and scalds ds....6,71
From poison. 1870
So it is readily seen that railroads
and fire and poison are more destruc-
tive than alcohol. Why not prohibit
them? 1t would be just as reasona-
BILE.
1t can easily he shown by statistics
that the death-rate increases in pro-
hibitiOn States rather than dimin-
ishes. but space forbids. Whatever
may be the effect of the use of alco-
hol upon the general death-rate, pro-
hibition does not offer 4 remedy. 1t
is notorious fact the four leading
nations OF the world, England.
France, Germany and the United
States are the greatest beer drinkers.
Simply because few damphOOlS
don't know when they have enough,
is no reason why 80 per cent. of the
people should be prohibited from
having what they consider a natural
right to take Prohibition is ethic-
ally wrong. for it promotes confisca-
tion. 1t is morally wrong because it
leads men to do things surreptitious-
ly what they would otherwise do
openly and without fear. The prin-
ciple is absurd in the highest degree
1t is undemocratic and un-American
and should be relegated to the tomb
of all follies. &c. Coo.