The Logan Republican. [volume] (Logan, Utah) 1902-1924, 1911-06-22
any other in. promoting zeal temper

$3.50 ir 30 Nd
So much fcs the greater moral ev,
lis that attend prohibition and testify |
Significantly that it is by no means
good for the state" We have said
nothing of the secret drinking the ad-
diction to baneful drugs, the crime
breeding "speak-easies" and similar
nameless dives, the special crop of
evils for the individual and the home,
which are equally chargeable to pro-
hibition. These are, indeed, known to
all men and ask no commentary.
Now, as to the material side of the
question, SIS prohibition good for the
slater" This in truth is even easier
to answer and claims more empha-
| tic, negative. A very few facts and
figures will suffice to establish our
| position. .-,
1t is, of course, to be taken for
|
granted that the state is not indiffer.
ent to its material prosperity or to
any conditions injuriously affecting
the same. Such condition is brought
about speedily and inevitably under
prohibition. The North American Re-
view, a conservative authority, says
on this point:
THE states of the Union, without
exception, which have adopted pro.
hibitory laws, either in whole or in
part, have either experienced a mat
erial decrease in population, or have
fallen very far behind the other
states in their growth.
I'm 900 towns located in thirty
three different states, 644 of them un.
der prohibition or local option laws
and, of course, legally permitting no
liquor to be sold in them, the aver
age tax rate on each $4,000 of val.
uation in 1902 was s2.43 in the pro.
hibition towns, and sl.59 in the
towns where liquor was permitted
The average, therefore, was SO per
cent higher in the prohibition than in
the licensed towns. A similar inyea
tigation gives like results as to rents
and real estate values in such local
tiles"
, North, south, east and west, wher
ever prohibition gets a foothold, tn,
immediate and certain results ale in
). creased taxes, stagnation of business
and decline of local prosperity. In
: crease of population is conceded Il
be good for the state" Well, Maine
, is the oldest, the banner prohibiti1r
state. Her population in 1860 was
81 OF to the square mile; thirty years
later it was 21.O7 How is that fol
prohibition?
e Is pauperism good for the slater
:. Sparsely populated Maine. "all dry
/. at least in theory. has 1853 out of ev
!. cry 100000 of it's people living in
, almshouses, while thickly populate
. license New Jersey has only 81 in
, the same proportion.
3 So we begin to see that the tangible
l ,af tcr:a' fruits of prohibition arc loss
OF population. economic ruin and mis-
4 cry, auperism, discomfort and crime
= None of these things Is, however
+ good for the state" and in all OF
+ them the prohibition states have
achieved the head of the colunn.
+ Fnolly, prohibition deprives the
q st..e of enormous revenue by which
many public institutions of social
I charitable and educational utility are
l. maintained. This revenue cannot 9th
d erwise be supplied without working
= great hardship to the people and in
viting a train of economic disorders.
d Perhaps the fathers of our country
l. knew what was good for the state.
n 1t is certain at any rate that Jeffer