Bradford County telegraph. (Starke, Fla.) 1888-current, 1910-08-19
DOES PROHIBITION PROHIBIT?
Mr.. FutCh Discusses Rooted Points In
absorbing Subject

advocates CT saloons are so f9nd OF say.
ing, this may with truth besssdof all Ie-
nal law. AS q matter of fact, there is no
penal law On thu statute b2d ks that is
not at some time violated. Unfortunate
| ly, many Of the laws that are Almest uni
versally admitted to be propef and nec-
essary are frequently violatedl Is 1t not
a very small percentage of our People
OF Florida who really believe that the
laws against adultery ard highmy ought
to be repealed? We ali know that these
laws touch a moral question and that
they do not prevent these offehses. Yet
do We hear any outc-y against these
statutes because they are Designed to
/ p-eveLt a moral evil n becauae they do
not sue eed in that design:
Our friends who oppose Prchibition
because ''it does not. p ohitit" may say
that these laws do not in terms prohibit
the Offenses against which thSy are di-
rected. Such a contention is wholly
without merit and simply /, &z!bbliug.
For, broadly speaking, tie object Of
law, as is well known, is 10 command
what is right and to prohlbl9 what is
wrong. The penalties of thd law are
not merely to punish those 10 violate
the law, but more especially 70 deter the
people from violating the law. In other
words, it is the object Of he legislature
in enacting a statute to preventive doing
of the very things for which the PEN
alties are imposed. Il is not the object
or the desire of the lawmakins body to
intiict punishment upon the citizen.
The penalty is attached mainly as de-
terrent-to prevent the dong af certain
things named in the statute IL is en-
tirely proper and even necessary, as q
rule, that punishment be inflicted upon
one who violates the law. Ia ouch case
the penalty has two-fo.d aspdct-pun-
ishment of the individual for. tbs VIOLA
ton of the law and for al example to
others to deter them from Likewise vio-
: lating the same law.
No advocate Of prOhibi:.5n 1rects the
adoption Of the proposed lCas: /; utional
amendment 70 absolutely stop the con-
sumption Of intoxicating liuuhrs as
beverage, or even wholly 10 prevent
drunkenness IN cur state. 10 sine man
5 can expect snch results. Ths proposed
amendment Of the constitution does not
dire city setk 10 control the drinking Of
sucIl EquorS. The confirmed d4unkard,
> aDJ even the so-cSlled moderate thinker,
= whose appetite for whiskey is too strong
q be GALE moderate, will procure his
I Javorite leverage and continue 10 drink
reliably to the end of his days. There
are yet many states Of our union There
it can be obtaiccd legally, hnll until
congress shall enact q law ohibiting
its shipment into dry territory il can be
g legally acquired. 1t is but rea.Lha to
suppose that large quantities # it will
y be shipped into our state ate. the ap-
prevail of this amendment.
: Among the many advantages that the
pronibitionis,s do confidently e1P ocr " IL
flow from the adoption of this amend
ment is this, that the temptation of the
open saloon with its we'll known Access
i series will be removed and the consump-
q ito of intoxicating liquors greatly re-
o duced. With the modern saloon re-
moved, that each succeeding generation
s will show q constantly decreasing per-
!. centage of drnnkards and q constantly
Il increasing percentage of total abstain
:. ers, is a natural and logical deduction.
The prohibitionists fmly believe tbis
d to BE- true, and that is sufficient reason
Il for their earnest and jealous work for
II the adoption of this amendment If
1 any weakened prohibitionist has any
IS doubt about the fact that prohibition
IS lessons the consumption Of intoxicating
liquors, let him tfiect upon themeaning
a of the violent and frenzied opposition of
If the brewers and distillers. Note that
10 do not here refer to the retail liquor
r. dealer. Let us admit for the sake Of
b. argument only that the retail liquor
r. deale - lawabiding man and that the
,. adoption of this amendment will drive
him out of lis business. That Is sufi.
|. cient to array him against Us IN this
fight. But how about the brewer and
l. the distIller? Ara they philanthropistG
= or so patriotic that they oppose Is on the
II high ground of personal liberty" of thu
citizen, or because our proposed amend
n ment is not democratic" az some
" of them claim? Is lit ndt more
n reasonable to place them On thu
J. same footing with other captains o.
~ industry" They have vast Sums Of
At money-msny millions Of dolH Sin
g vested in their breweries and dIstillerieI
IN IN the U. 8. but very little in Florida
9 Many of these concerns are incorporated
* aad have numerous stockholders WHIT
st doubtless are clsmorous for dividends
K. IL prohibition doss not prohibit" bat
ss some would have rs believe. does no,
to even lessen tho output OF these vas
Continued on Page ~
!