The Springfield herald., 1912-10-25
DOES PROHIBITION PROHIBIT7
(By g. q. Wilkinson.)

The campaign for statewide
prohibition is warming up. This
week want to refute the Oft
repeated statement sent out by
the liquor forces that "prohibi,
tion does not prohibit, and a pro-
hibitory law cannot be enforced.
This utterly false statement is
one of the stock arguments of
the liquor crowd in every cam
paign ever waged for prohibition
No other statement is being so
constantly reiterated by them in
the campaign in Colorado this
fall, and no other statement
which they make is so utterly
without foundation. Did it ever
occur to you, Mr.. Voter, that
the mere denial of thing proves
nothing? If no proof is brought
forward, the mere utterance of
the denial does not make it a
fact. And one thing is conspic-
uously noticeable about this oft
repeated statement OF theirs,
they never bring forward any
facts and figures to prove what
they assert. They can't do it,
because there are no such facts
and figures at their command.
Before producing my argu-
ment, wish to make this candid
statement, We do not contend
that a prohibitory law can be so
perfectly enforced as absolutely
to prohibit the sale and use of
liquor. No law that you can
name is enforced in such man
ner. We admit that a prohibit
tory law will be more OF less vio-
lated even as other laws are vio-
lated. We do not say that all the
good that ought to follow proai-
bition will Immediately follow.
But we do say that such a law
an be as successfully enforced
as other laws against crime, and
that twill prohibit as success
fully as other laws of like
nature.
The first argument | make in
refutation of their statement
that prohibition does not pro
hibit' is the charge that it places
them in a ridiculously inconsis
tent position. If prohibition does
not prohibit, then why do they
Sight it? Why pay any attention
a to it: Why seek again and again
1to overthrow it where it has
once been adopted! Why work
so hard for resubmission? Why
spend millions of dollars to keep
it rom becoming the law in new
territory? Why raise a fund of
two millions of dollars to defeat
sta ate-wide prohibition in Colora-
do this fall? The fact is, they
don t believe this falsehood them
selves, and only use it in desp-
crate attempt to blind and de-
ceive the people.
Second, they object that more
liquor is consumed in dry terri
tory than in wet. Such a state
ment again places them in an IN
consistent position. If it be true
then why do they fight prohibi-
tion: Why not hail it with de-
light as the secret of increased
business for their trade? When
they make such a statement, and
then fight prohibition with all
their might, they lie .either ;by
what they say or/by what they
do But figures taken from
their own sources utterly refute
their objection. The United
States Brewers Association
Year Book states that in nine
prohibition states the average
consumption is 1.35 gallons per
capita; and ip twenty seven
saloon states it is 1923 gallons
per capita. This from their own
records does not compare very
we'll with their statements that
p rohibition increases the con-
$ umption of liquor.
| Third, they assert that prohi-
bition does not prohibit, and then
argue from this that there ought
not to be any prohibitory law.
But this argument is as logical
and effective against all other law
for tho ,,royap tiDr Nf f.,irnn nc If