The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-04-04


 a reduction of the number of drink
 ing places tends to restrict the con-
 sumption of ardent spirits. We nave frequently found the evil effects of all coholiSm most prevalent in the very
 localities where the number of drink
 ing places was smallest-an apparent
 anomaly which finds its explanation
 in the fact that in the absence of
 sufficient number of conveniently To-
 cated public bar-rooms the people of
 the localities in question became ac-
 customed to tippling at home, laying
 in store greater or smaller quantities
 of spirits according to their means.
 The number of saloons is not a criter-
 ion of the consumption of spirits
 And, in view of the experience that
 those of our American communities
 that have tried 1t have had with pro-
 hibition, it is more than probable
 that results like those in Switzerland
 would follow the passage of a law
 reducing as materially as this propos-
 ed limitation naw would the number
 of drinking places in Connecticut. As
 a concrete example showing the eX
 treme probability of such a result let
 me quote the comparative experience
 of Cambridge and Lowell in the mat
 ter of drunkenness as shown by a
 number of arrests in both cities. Cam
 bridge has the distinction of being
 the largest city in America that has
 been continuously "dry" for a long
 period of time. and yet the average
 number of arrests there for drunken
 ness was for four license years 12 in
 every 1000. while for six no-license
 ulation. In Lowell, which has been
 almost uniformly a licensed city, ana
 is slightly larger than Cambridge
 the average figures for drunkenness show a decrease of 25 per cent. in
 the ten years from 1896 to 1907, and
 fho% tno in, hn fo of O I0 f.
 ing population, for the rapid develop
 ment of rural trolleys has been bring ing a large number of out of town
 people into Lowell every day. A
 very marked decrease in the figures
 for Lowell has taken place in the
 last three years, as result no doubt
 of the liberal Sunday hotel law that
 has been in force. The figures for
 no-license and residential Cambridge
 ran from 12 up to 20 In every 1000
 of the population, while In license ana
 manufacturing Lowell the hub of a
 large rural population, they ran down
 from 4s to 36. The prohibitionists of course, offer no explanation of
 this astounding fact; but practical men realize that it represents the nat
 ural human rebellion against restr1c- tion, a rebellion that was first graft ed into human nature when Adam
 and Eve ate the forbidden fruit: Make it harder for men to drink when they
 seek the opportunity and men will
 drink all the harder when they get
 the world that runs back almost to
 the very dawn of creation, and no
 amount of .honeyed talk from prating
 prohibitionists can ever read the les
 son otherwise. Reduce the number
 of saloons in Connecticut as these ad- Vocates of limitation would do and you are more than likely to have re- suits: like those in Switzerland and Cambridge; certainly, in the light Of
 all the knowledge and experience we have on the subject, you will not les sen the number of drinkers nor de- crease the consumption of drink.
 Now. Gentlemen, in view of the fact that there is no great amount of public sentiment in Connecticut for a limitation law such as is under discussion, and in view of the further fact that reduction in the number of drinking places effects no reduc- tion of drinking itself, where is the l Justification in making so radical 9 change in our existing excise system as your committee is asked to rec ommend? It is true we are told that a limitation law of this character will bring a better class of men into the saloon business, but the assertion ] is a wholly gratuitous one. The men engaged in the liquor business in | Massac achusetts, where there is a lirni- | l in no respect better than the men en- gagged in the business in Connections and Rhode Island where no such linn l itation is in force. l have had occa- ! sion during the past half dozen years | to make pretty regular visits to the l chusetts and Rhode Island, and l
 speak advisedly when I say that for intelligence, industry, integrity, res probability and good citizenship the l liquor dealers of Connecticut are quite the peers of those in Massachusetts. There is nothing to be gained III ai.y
 way that will reflect credit on this commonwealth of Connecticut through 1 the passage of 8 limitation law like that under discussion: there is very l much that will cast discredit on the
 honesty and sense of justice that
 ''the land of steady habits by mak- l ing the state a cOnfiscator of vested rights and properties that have been
 built up under the sanction of the | law. For you can't reduce the num- l Der of saloons as this limitation jaw
 of men out of business and turning them and their families adrift into l new and unaccustomed fields of exist
 ence and wrecking the accumulation
 of years of industry and toll. You | can't reduce the number of saloons I
 many allied industries that find in the
 saloons the whole or greater field for | their output.
 The cigar trade, the glass blowing l industries. the bar-fixture factories | the plumbing business, the harness and wagon-making establishments l and numerous other industries that
 might be mentioned, the capital and | labor engaged iH which find a large measure of their revenues in the sa- l looms, are all bound to suffer if the
 number of drinking places is reduc- l ed to the extent that this proposed limitation law would reduce them. A chain is no stronger than it's links
 and if in putting a large number of 1 drinking places out of existence one of
 the strongest links that make up this | great chain of allied industries is | mashed, the inevita ble result must be | to deprive many of the men engaged | in these industries and their families | of their accustomed means of liveli- 1 hood. AS I look on these men who
 are advocating this limitation meas l ure l can see none that I would think | capable of robbing his neighbor's hen | rOost, and yet they would unblushing- l ly confiscate the property, and ] through your committee ask the State l of Connecticut to confiscate the prop erty of a large number of liquor l dealers and glory in their work as an 1 oblation on the altars of religion. Out
 upon such religion, I say! It was 1 the same brand of religious zealotry | that burned the Salem witches at the l stake, that sent Roger Williams out l of Massachusetts to start a brewery l in Rhode Island. that justified the | horrors of the Spanish inquisition, It