The Republican journal., 1909-01-21


article from the Boston Transcript which
said, in substance, that the Prohibition
party had outlived it's usefulness and
that there was no excuse for it's further
existence. A good friend in Chicago
soon after sent us two copies of the
National Prohibitionist containing arti-
cles showing that the Prohibition party
is very much alive and has plenty of
work cut out for it. The Prohibitionist
says that more than $50, 900 men voted
the Prohibition ticket and had their votes
counted in the last election; but that "the
liquor-owned daily papers" give ga total
for the Prohibition vote, ranging from
100000 to 24O,OOO, according to the de-
gree held by the old party editor in the
Ananias Club" Of two-thirds of the
whole Prohibition party it says:
They are reading editorials on the 'ter-
rible falling off, Of the Prohibition vote,
and they are being told in the columns of
literally thousands of papers, that the
leaders of the Prohibition party" have
decided to disband the party and cease
effort along partisan lines. The result
of this flood of mendacity can not be
other than the slumping away of thou
sands of men who voted with us, and
when the next campaign begins we must
win thousands of voters before we are
back to our present strength.
The report of the Sturgis commission
contains some suggestive paragraphs.
For example:
Cases enough have been brought be-
fore the courts by our deputies in each
of the counties where they have been at
work to have practically put an end to
the liquor business in these several coun-
ties had the full penalty provided by law
been imposed.
Is not this true as well of counties
where deputies have not been at work,
but in which the regular officials had
done their full duty? And here is another
important point:
If the conduct of liquor cases is left in
charge OF the county attorney regardless
of his attitude toward enforcement an
entire docket of criminals may practical
ly escape punishment. We believe it
should be the duty of the court to see
that the liquor docket is fully and COM
pletely presented and properly acted up
on, and that the court should deal with
any county attorney who fails to attend
to his duty properly in this respect.
Is not this true? Why should a judge
defer to county attorney and permit an
offender to go free knowing that a jail
sentence is richly merited? This method
of multiplying the laws could be put a stop
to by adopting the following recommen-
dalton of the Sturgis commission:
The statutes should be amended in re-
gard to the liquor law, so that the SEN
fences prescribed by the statutes should
be imposed, and it should not be left to
the discretion of the court to change
them.
There would be no need of a Sturgis
commission, or of any additional legisla-
ton, if the present laws were enforced
fully and impartially in every part Of the
State. AS it is we have seen jail SEN
fences in one county, local option in an
other-fin taking the place of license
and where neither fines nor jail sentences
are imposed it is really free rum. The
sending of an irresponsible barkeeper to
Jail occasionally and letting the proprie-
tor go free is not just and tends to bring
the laws into contempt The laws should
be enforced impartially as to all offend
ers, regardless of their wealth, politics
or religion.