The advocate. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1901-1913, 1912-08-29

Finally this emiuct and unim-
peachable Committee reaches these
conclusions, which would seem to
settle decisively the moral side of
the question::
ALMOST every sort Of liquor legis-
latlon creates some specific evil In
Eti tics"
Legislation to secure the ends of
prohibition intensifits political dis
sanlons, incites to social strife and
aE"'d&es the public sense Of self-res-
Cecting liberty"
1T cannot be positively affirmed
that any one kind liquor legislation
has bEen more successful than any
other IN promoting real temperance"
So much for the greater moral
evils 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 addiction to baneful
drugs, the crime breeding ,'Fspeak-
castles" and similar nameless dives,
the special crop Of evils for the
individual and the home, which
are equally chargeable Ito prohibi-
ton. These are indeed known of
all men and ask no commentary.
Now as the material side of the
:question, Is prohibition good for
the State? - This in truth is easier
to answer and claims a more en-
phatie 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 in
different to its material prosperity
or to any conditions injnriously af-
fecting the same Such a condition
is brought about speedily and in
evitably under prohibition. The
North American Review, a conser--
.vatiye authority, says on this point
"The states of the Union, without
exception, which have adopted prohib
itocy laws, either in whole or in part,
have either experienced a material de-
crease in population, or have fallen
very far behind the other states in
their growth"
I'm 906 towns located in 33 differ
ent states, 644 Of them under prohibit
ton of-leeal- eptiea-lawS-a and of
couse, legally permitting no liquor to
be sold in them, the average tax rate
on each $4,000 of valuation in 1902
was $2.43 in the prohibition towns,
and $159 in the towns where liquor
+ was permitted. The average, there
fore was So per cent. higher in the
prohibition than in the licensed towns.
A similar investigation gives like re-
suits as 20 rents and real estate values
in such localities"
North, South, East and West,
wherever prohibition gets a foot
hold, the Immediate and certain re-
SUI It's are increased taxes, sta gntion
Of business and decline of local
property. Increase Of population
is conceded to be "good for the
State" Well, Maine is the oldest
the banner prohibition State. Her
population in 1860 was PIP to the
square mile; thirty years later it
was 21.7. How is that for prohi-
bition9
Is pauperism "good for the
State % Sparsely populated Maine
call dry" at least in theory, has
1863 out Of every 100000 Of it's peo-
pie living in almshouses, while
thickly populated New jersey has
only "a in the same proportion.
SO we begin to see the tangible,
material fruits of prohibition are
loss Of population, pauperism, dis
content and crime. None Of these
things are, however, "good for the
State" and in all Of them the pro-
hibitiOn States have achieved the
head Of the column
Finally, prohibition deprivcs the
state Of enormous revenue by
which many public institutions Of
social, charitable and educational
utility are maintained This seven
ne cannot otherwise be supplied
without working great hardship to
the people and inviting train Of
economic disorders.
Perhaps the Fathers of our
country knew what was "good for
the. State" It is certain, at any
rate, that Jefferson, Madison and
Hamilton, with the majority of the
Eoarlv 1aw-makprs favored and