El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1911-07-13
Both Sides of Prohibition
CONTRIBUTED BY ]. l. CAMPBELL.

In 1906 Maine had in her state pris-
ons 176 convicts or "a per 100, 900 popu-
lation; Kansas had, in 1910, $50, or 81
in 100, 600; Massachusetts,, in 1906, had
305S, or 80 In 100000; and the United
States in 1900 had 80. 329. or 81 in 1907
600. Intemperance is admittedly a preg-
nant source OF crime.
In the case of Kansas VS.. Durien, the
supreme court of that state says of in
toxicating liquor: TT is still the pro-
life source Of disease, misery, pauper-
ism, vice and crime Its power to
weaken, corrupt, debauch and Stay hu-
man character and human life is not
destroyed or impaired because it may
be susceptible of some innocent uses,
or may be used with propriety on some
occasions. The health, morals, peace
and safety of the community at large
are still threatened"
In Lants VS.. state of Iowa, the SUI
preme court of the state says: There
is no statistical or economical PROPOSE
tion better established, nor one to
which a more general assent is given
by reading and intelligent minds than
this: that the use of intoxicating liq-
uors as a drink, is the cause of more
want pauperism, suffering. crime and
public expense than any other cause
and perhaps it should beNSaid than all
other causes combined. Every state APP
plies the most stringent legal power TO
lotteries, gambling. keeping gambling
houses and implements, and to debauch-
cry and obscenity, and no one questions
the right and business of it; and yet
how small is the weight of woe pro-
duced by all these united when COM
pared with that which is created by
the use of intoxicating drinks alone.
In Crowley VS.. Christensen, the Unit
ed States supreme court says: BY
general concurrence of opinion of ev-
cry civilized and Christian communi-
ty, there are few sources of crimes
and misery to society equal to the
dram shop where intoxicating liquors,
in small quantities. to be drunk at the
time. are sold indiscriminately to all
parties applying. The statistics Of ev-
cry state show a greater amount or
crime and misery attributable to the
use of ardent spirits obtained at these
retail liquor saloons than to any other
source"
Question and answer SO read:
"s3. Does prohibition prevent
poverty? According to the last
statistical abstract Of the United
States, issued in 1903, prohibition
Kansas had $50 paupers in the
a1mshouse, this being 163 to each
1UU,UUU population mdit1e HdO
1852 paupers in ths .almshouse,
being 1913 to each 100, 900 popula-
ton Texas had 91S paupers in the
almshouse. being 81 to each 100000
of population showing that accord
ing to population prohibition Kan
sas had almost twice as many pau
pers as Texas, while prohibition
Maine had more than five times
as many. Sociologists and charity
workers agree that drunkenness lie
more often the result Of poverty
than poverty the result Of drunk
enness. There is more poverty,
more crime in Turkey. India and
China, which are all prohibition
nations, than in all the rest of the
world put together. Thus pow
erty can not be charged to drink,
as these axe all prohibition coun-
ties"
Three -fourths of Texas IS under pro-
hibition through local option. Her ru-
raj population is large compared with
her cities. When Kansas and Maine
are compared with Illinois, Pennsyl-
vania or New York. the figures tell
different story Maine and Massachu-
setts would be a fairer comparison THANH
Maine and Texas. But the would not
serve the purpose Of the catechism be-
causle Massachusetts has 100 paupers
per $1,000. as compared to 1913 for
Maine and Kansas.
J. L. Campbell.