The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1909-02-03
Medical society is opposed to prohl-

DllloIt-
Some discussion ensued on this ~
sue in the midst Of which DR.. E. "
silver made motion TO adjourn, and
this motion taking precedence oves.
all question pending before the body,
It was adopted.
The discussion of the question last
ed nearly two hours. DR.. Joseph Rich
ards favored prohibition DR.. Snow
favored temperance. In his mind the
/ question arose, as, (, TO whether prohi.
bition prohibits II the law prohlb.
ited he would certainly favor. il, but
he was undecided on the question. DIT.
Nj A.. Hughes urged the enforcement
Of the laws now upon the statute
books. He also advocated high Ii
cense. Local option might control the
Issue. he said, but he contended tha:
saloons had rights, and vested inter
eets. He stood squarely Tor regula-
ton and the enforcement of law
DR.. A. S. Bower said he was opposed
to prohibition, but he urged the reg
uIation of the liquor traffic. He be-
lieved in the vested personal rights,
and does not think the Sindividuol
should be deprived of them.
Dr. r. w. Fisher did not believe
that prohibition would prohibit, III the
community favored IL and would sup
Dort It, the measure might be Dracti'
cable; but where the people were not
ir favor of 1t. it did n great deal OF
harm He was in favor Of local up
ton, and a well regulated saloon. he
said. did a great deal less harm than
drug stores.
DR.. Cannon stood for high license,
for the open saloon, where men can
he seen taking drink. and for the
forfeiture of the license in the event
OF conviction for infraction OF the law.
DR.. II. S Scott did not think the
subject OF prohibition should have
come before the aocicty. He was
against liquor in the drug store. He
did not want to be In a position to
have to write a prescription for drink
and charge So for 1t.
DR.. Sullivan. formerly OF Atlanta,
Ga, a prohibition town. said he DC
lieved In prohibition, but his expert
ence was that 1t did not prohibit, The
movement in Atlanta cost that City
half a million He did not believe In
the use OF whiskey. but in Atlanta
there was more drunkenness and
fewer arresta since the movement
was inaugurated. Now there was
whsskcy In the house or in the neigh
bor's house, where 1t did not exist
before, He advocated an enforcement
Of the existing laws, and cited the
fact that in twenty-five years no IL
cense in Salt Lake City had been for
Lfelted-so he was informed, he SAID
| DR.. Stauffer announced that he did
not believe In prohibition or local op
| ton. In Germany and France, where
the traffic is regulated and the drink
| ing is done In the open, there were
| very few drunken people. The laws
| there were enforced, he said He did
not belive in restricting a mans lib
| erty.
State Senator Stookey declined tc
! discuss the question. as he would have
an opportunity to discuss 1t in another
place.
AT this point DR.. Fisher asked the
president, DR. Bailey if there was any
thing before the house, and, receiving
negative reply, he asked what they
| were ldIhlDG1 lOOles <AiNNi opih' ~
| tber discussion DR.. Fisher moved "tha
the Salt Lake Medical society is Il
favor of temperance but opposed &c
the provisions of the prohibitory Can
non"
This proposition. however, did no
seem to suit the taste of the medlcos
More discussion followed. DR.. Pan
moved that the society 20 on recorC
as being opposed to prohibition. DR.
Baldwin moved that the society de
clare itself in favor of temperance.
The latter motion was put and car
ried
DR.. A. C. Ewing then made motto,
"that the Salt Lake County Medica
society is opposed TO prohibition" D.
Richards spoke against this motion
AT this juncture DR. Silver intervene
with his motion to adjourn The me
tion was put, There was no opposition
and the meeting concluded.