Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1911-08-15
prohibition VS.. License.
Editor Democrat:

Il Prohibition vs.. License.
Editor Democrat:
Il Will you allow me small space II
your columns on this important subject.
Shall 1t be prohibition and continued
prosperity, or license, with its train o.
3 evils? In 1884, after twenty.six years OF
. prohibition, the people Of Maine adopted
the amendment to the constitution pro-
viding that the manufacture OF intoxi.
eating liquors, and the sale and the
! keeping for sale OF Intoxicating liquors,
, are and shall be forever prohibited
thus, in addition to the statute law to
, that effect, they made prohibition a
part of the fundamental law OF the state,
40 that the statute law could not be re-
. pealed except by repeal of the amend
ment to the constitution. That constl-
tutional provision was adopted by vote
of 70, 1888 yeas, against 23,S11 noes, Civ
ing a majority in favor of the amend
ment of 46,972, or nearly three to one
After twenty-six years more OF prohio''
|tion, making fifty-two years in all, the
people are asked to repeal that constitu-
tional provision, the purpose OF which,
undoubtedly, is to establish in place OF
our prohibitOry law, a license law; or, In
other words, we are asked tn substitute
the licensed saloon for law which
prohibits the establishment of open
saloons and the manufacture and sale OF
Intoxicating liquors, and the argument
liz, that prohibition has proved failure.
because it is claimed that liquor is sold
in the state, and for that reason the law
does not prohibit.
The laws prohibit murder, arson,
burglary, gambling and other crimes.
all of which are violated. Why not re-
peal those laws, because they do not pro-
hibit the crimes, and establish in their
place local option laws, that men may
steal or gamble in one town and be pro-
hibited in another? This argument
against prohibition because it does not
absolutely prohibit people from selling
Intoxicating liquors in every place in the
state, ia used by those who want to get
rid of the law. Such talk is promulgat-
ed BY the saloon-keeper, who alone
would be benefited by license to sell.
But ia 1t true that prohibition does not
prohibit? 1t must be admitted that there
are no open saloons in the rural parts OF
the state of Maine, and very few In the
cities, and what there are, II any, are
run In open violation of the law, as lar
ceny and burglary are committed In
open violation of the law. The same
condition would exist under license.
Isn't it worth something to the state OF
Maine that the sale of Intoxicating
liquors has been driven out of the rural
sections and most of the cities, except in
occasional secret places and at the peril
of being detected and punished?
What has been accomplished in the
State of Maine under fifty-two years of
prohibition? find that in thirty years.
from 1880 to 1910, the state has increased
in population 90, 1888. The deposits iB1
savings banks in 1888, the year before
constitutional prohibition was enacted,
were $50, SIC, 729; in 1910 the deposits in
the fifty-two savings banks we're sos, 402,- |
5SS, and added to that, the deposits on
interest in the forty trust companies,
which should be taken as the same as
savings banks, were SAG, 145, 401, max
ing total of S144 SAT $50, or an increase
of Sill ,O31, 26O, and to this may appro-
priately be added the S1S,00O,000. In |
round numbers, that are in the savings |
departments of national banks, bearing |
interest at the same rate as in savings |
banks.
The wealth of the state in her manu- |
features, and agriculture, and all other
industries, has kept pace with this In
crease of population and increase OF
savings In our banks. Why change from |
a condition that has produced this grand
result to condition that would give us
the open, licensed saloon, which is the |
menace of any population; while it may |
be said of some that they would never |
vote to open saloon in their own town.
they yet advocate the open saloon, claim |
ing that less liquor would be drunk. We
say that an open, licensed saloon in any |
town in the state Of Maine would increase |
the use of liquor more than five-fold,
from what is used at the present time. |
1t makes liquor drinking respectable, to
a certain extent, where now y is not re-
spectacle. 1t opens the avenue for |
young men to become debauched and
dissipated and ruined, where now the
temptation Is hidden from them.
From a business and economic stand |
should be sustained and the saloon out |
lawed The vast amount of money that |
Is paid every year for drink does nobody |
any good; it brings nothing into the
state, but is carrying off annually hun
dreds of our young, enterprisine bust |
ness men, who otherwise would not only |
be an honor to the state, but would add
largely to its prosperity and wealth.
All business men and large business
enterprises who seek the employment of |
young, active men as clerks, statesmen,
or in whatever capacity they wish them,
require recommendations, and among
the first questions asked is this, SIS he |
addicted to the use of Intoxicating |
liquor?" If he ia, nine times out Of ten
he is rejected. Every secret and bene' |
fetal order, which has done vast
amount of good, requires statement
showing that the applicant Is not ad- |
dicted to the use of intoxicating liquors.
Whatever large and important under.
taking men enter into where aid and
help is required from others, the use OF
Intoxicating liquor is prohibited.
Now If this Is 80 essential in business
enterprises, why should the public place
the temptation before young men by al |
lowing gilded saloons, attractive places
where they can be led 10 and contract
the habit that they might not acquire If
they were hidden from them? 1t Is no
use to argue that prohibition does not
prohibit, because, while 1t may not
absolutely eradicate the evil, It prohibits
It. JAMES s. WRIGHT.
Buckfield. Hartford. Hebron Teachers.
Schools In the union district of Buck |
6old Hartford and HehrOn will com.