The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-12-17
PEOPLES FORUM
DR.. Do Jarnstts ard Alcoholism.

, EoFor OF Inc t1rgtntan:
Sir.-Dr. J. s. DeJarnette. supertnteudent Of
The Western Hospital for the Insane, at Staun-
Ton. in a recent report to the governor, made
some very interesting statements. He said. In
brler, that he believed that the saloons ought to
De subjected to a special tex to support In a
separate institution the insane victims of the
hospitals In the State. In the same connection
he held that a like rule should apply to the
druggists to support victims of drug habits.
1t Is not within the province of the Anti Saloon
league TO discuss the latter proposition. but with
reference to the former several things may be
noted opportunity.
Whether one agrees with the general PROPOSE
tion OF DR.. DeJarnette his position is undoubt-
eddy a logical one. II the State also ia required
to pay is proportion OF the expense Of caring
for the victims OF the saloons. It is logical to
suggest that II the saloonkeeper IL damaging
people through his business he should be required
at least to help repair such damage. Ii negli-
gently or purposely an individual should put OBJ
structfons In a public road he would be held
responsible for damages resulting therefrom.
why should not the saloonkeeper he made liable
for damages resulting from his operations? In
Illinois II a man from liquor, becomes incapaci-
tated. or dies, especially by some tragic means
hts family can sue for damages the saloonkeeper
who sold him the liquor. In a number of cases
substantial sums have been recovered by fami-
lies In that state.
We hold no brief for the saloonkeeper. but
L would also appear logical that as the State
licenses the saloon. and makes It a legal busi-
ness, the state Is in part to blame for the VIC
tins of the institution and, therefore. should
help maintain such victims out OF its general
~evenues. If the State. a partner In the liquor
-raffc with the saloonkeeper derives revenue
from the debauchery of its citizens. why should
not the State share it's proportion OF the ex-
pense of caring fer alcoholics?
The fact is that while the proposition with
reference TO the saloon and ITS insane victims
IS a logical one. the saloon itself is the most
Illogical institution within the bounds of the
State. II it Is admitted-and we understand
hat such is the case-that 35 per cent of the
insan ne patients In Virginia are victims Of alco-
holism. why should the State continue to license
he saloon to create this admitted IS per cent OF
much more logical. sensible and economical for
me State to withdraw it's legal sanction OF the
factory that turns out insane alcoholics, and
save not only itself and many valuable citizens.
tut clear itself from all completely in this hor-
-ible business?
No question Is ever settled until ii is settled
right, and it is exceedingly foolish and extrav-
agant and. we firmly believe, criminal for the
government OF this State. or anv other State. to
license the saloon which Is inherently wrong,
and to debauch Its own citizens through sucn
an Ubiquitous system.
or course 1t goes without saying that the LIQUOR
.raffc in Virginia has never paid Its way, and
never will. We have repeatedly shown this
cent of pauperism. and 35 per cent Of insanity
traceahle to the saloon cost the State $7SS, TIA.
The revenue derived from the liquor traffic was
1870, 7S9: thus we see that the liquor trafr c cost
the State $277.s75 in cold cash more than 1t
~aid into the treasury OF the Commonwealth. AL
things considered, would II not be better, and
pay better entirely to eliminate the liquor license
system and establish such an ideal of no license
as has been done so proftably In other States,
and work out that ideal through the determina-
RI the people OF the Mother Of States and States
men?
ED. ]. RICHARDSON.
Falls Church, Va, December Is, 1912.