The Republican journal., 1911-08-10
The Decalogue of Rumsellers
and Their Friends Examined.


theft, murder, prohibit? We all know
that no prohibitory law to suppress any
crime entirely prohibits the crime. Does
any sane man say that because our pro-
hibitory law against lying, stealing,
gambling, ETC., is not always enforced,
that we should license them? Would a
license law entirely suppress any crime?
What earthly reason can be given for
licensing the saloon because prohibition
do ISN'T prohibit, that will not apply with
equal force for licensing the gambling
house and brothel, because the prohibit
tory law against them doesn't prohibit?
Second: The prohibitory law against
the saloon causes hypocrisy, lying, de-
ception Don't criminals of all kinds de-
ceive, lie, practice all kinds of hypocrisy
to'cover their crimes? Don't the police in
our large cities wink at gambling houses
and brothels, and yet who ever heard OF
anybody proposing that because OF such
hypocrisy and such unfaithfulness of
officers, that the laws prohibiting these
crimes should be repealed and license en-
acted? The only reason why we hear
men repeating, parrot-like, License, LII
cense, License of the liquor traffic, and
never hear it in regard to all these other
crimes is because we have heard and
seen it so many times we fail to see the
absurdity of it, "Vice is monster Of so
frightful mein, as tobe hated, needs but
to be seen. But seen too oft, etc.
Third: We deplore the evil of drunk
enness; we are all for temperance. Now
when we have tried prohibition and found
it doesn't prohibit isn't it our duty to try
something else? Isn't it our bounden
duty to try license, which can't possibly
prohibit? Surprising we have a school
teacher who doesn't keep order in his
school. The disorder becomes insuffer-
able. It can not be borne any longer
What would we do? Would we say that
The teachers prohibition doesn tprohibit?
We have tried prohibition and it has fail
ed. Isr it our duty to try something
else? What would we do? Would we
say that if the pupils would pay ten dol
lars for q license that they might whisper
and laugh and play as much as they
pleased, or would We turn the teacher out
and get one who would enforce prohi-
bition? If we had boy and we had
family prohibitory law that he should
neither steal, lie, nor swear, and in spite
of the law he continually did all these,
we might whip him, but prohibition
doesn't seem to prohibit. What would
We do? Would we repeal our prohibitory
law and enact license? Would you say
to the boy, "Prohibition doesn't seem to
prohibit: you pay me 500 per year, and
you may lie, steal, and swear, as much
as you please?" The boy would be de-
lighted. He would say, 81 can easily
earn more than 500 per year stealing
and the hundred dollars will help father
about his taxes, and there will be no
more need of deception and Hypocrisy
Fourth: Make the saloon legal and
respectable. 1t will make the pleasant
est place of resort in the village. Good
liquors will be sold in neat and stylish
way. The high license man will help the
officers Danish the pocket peddler and
kitchen dive. Which is the most danger
Gus? Which will lead decent, we'll dis
posed young men of the village into the
drink habit, this elegant, we'll lighted,
gilded saloon, or the pocket peddler, or
the kitchen dive? All must agree that
the more elegant and enticing any vice is
the more dangerous it is. Again the
gided high license saloon doesn t by any
means Danish the pocket peddler and the
low dive. The disreputable characters
that can I raise the money to pay for
license are not going out of business.
They are gong to keep right on. The
experience in every license State shows
that they are as plenty as in prohibition
States. The gilded saloon doesn't want
the customers they have reduced from
gentlemen 4wn to dirty drunken sots
They are perfectly willing to turn them
over to the low dive and pocket peddler.
These last not having to pay any license
prosper better than under prohibition.
Fifth: The money paid into the town
treasury for licenses will lower the taxes.
This is taking argument, as to many
persons the ;urden of taxation is heavy;
to many is most distressing. The only
trouble with this argument is that it
isn't true. The increased cost of pau
pers, criminals, courts and officers,
which the town or city has to pay, much
more than offsets all that is received for
licenses. This is just what we should
expect, and experience Of hundreds of
towns and cities proves it beyond ques-
ton. Comparing the no-icense with the
license cities and towns in Massachusetts
for the last ~ years, the no-license
cities and towns pay lower taxes, make
larger appropriations for schools, and
have less debt than the license towns and
cities, This is the experience every
where.
Sixth: Prohibition can't be enforced.
License can. Just exactly wrong. The