The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1913-09-18
REFORM WITHIN, NOT
WITHOUT, SAYS TROUP,
TO STATE LIQUOR TRADE


| that these, like every other thing of
human devising, can be used or abus-
ed.
Not To Be Abused.
We make guns that careless men
sometimes do not know are loaded.
We build boats that fools occasion
ally rock.
We construct autos that SpeederS
sometimes ditch.
There IS not a man-made thing that
cannot be Improperly used, the use of
which cannot be abused-even print
| er's ink and church pulpits; but that
is no reason why guns and boats and
autos and printers ink and church
pulpits should be abolished. So it is
with liquor. Tt has use, a real use,
which unfortunately can be easily
| abused; but that is no reason why its
manufacture for and sale to those who
can use it should be prohibited.
Liquor, wine and beer were used
before disti11eries, breweries and sa-
looms were known. They will be used
even were all these instruments for
the proper production and distribu-
ton of this product destroyed.
Prohibition never has and never will
prohibit
I am reminded at this stage of the
old settler from the sage brush regions
of prohibition Kansas, who drove into
town, banged a huge jug on the cOun-
ter of the dtspensary and said: Fill
'er up, Doc; baby's sick again"
The easiest and worst thing TO Gre
ate and the hardest thing to get rid
of is prohibition's surest product, the
private still at home and the blind
tiger elsewhere.
Then Vote No-dcense.
IF a community doesn't want its |
liquor made in the open and made
right, sold in the open and sold right, |
the best way to achieve this undesir- |
able end is to vote no-1icense. In
fact all the old prohibition arguments
have been gainsaid so often that down !
in New Haven they have discovered |
a new cloak under which a prohibi- |
ton movement may masquerade.
We are told that New Haven should |
vote no-license, not to establish pro-
hibition-oh dear, no!-but so that |
the state limitation law of one license |
for each 500 of population may be bet
ter enforced.
I agree that a limitation law of one |
to 500 is q, benefit to the liquor trade;
In fact, I understand that the liquor
trade itself is responsible for this law.
also realize that in New Haven
we have $50 licenses over the num-
Der desired under the spirit of this
Limitation law. For that situation,
however. the liquor dealers are not to
blame.
AS you wen know, have always ia
cip1e of so-caIled license suicide" SO
that in New Haven we might approx
innate a closer conformity to the in
tent of the limitation law.
think some licenses have been
renewed in spite of protests where in
justice they should have been cancell-
ed.
For this result it is hard to fix re-
sponsibility exactly; but you know
that I have not tried to curry favor
with anybody, much less you gentle
men engaged in the liquor business, in
my editorial comments on this matter.
Nor am I trying to curry favor with
you now, when I take the position
that If it is wrong to issue or reissue
a license to a wi1fu1 and proven vio-
1ator of the liquor laws, 1t is equally
wrong to revoke by wholesale the Ii
censes of those who have honestly and
fairly engaged in this business and
ever lived up to the letter and spirit
of the laws regulating it. If it is
wrong to give a license to a liquor
revoke the license of a liquor law OBJ
server.
Fanatical to Violate the Law.
In fact, the liquor dealer who vio-
Iates the law to promote, in mis-
guided way, what he deems to be per-
sonal liberty, is, IN my opinion, infn-
ite1y to be preferred to the fanatic
ciple of personal liberty, Justice and
fair play, through the conf1scation OIL
honest mems business, simply to pro-
mote what he irnagines is a closer
conformity to the law written.
On what theory these friends of
so-ca11ed limitation justify an action,
that instead of giving us one licensed
saloon to each 500 population will
give US town of speak easies and
no licensed saloons to 10000 popu1a-
ton. is more than I can understand.
Probably they are proceeding on the
theory that all those saloons abolished
below the limitation number, are to
make up for those we have had above
that number, just as the good priest
said:
I am opposed to this mo license
campaign, now on in New Haven, for
three reasons. First, no real justif1-
cation for it. The saloon, business
in New Haven has never been better
or more clearly run than it is to-day.
Second make conditions under which
liquor is now sold in New Haven in
fnite1y worse than they are. We
ought to profit by Worcester's exam
pie in this matter. Third, because as
between one saloon in New Haven to
every $50 population, and a thous-
and blind tigers, am for the licensed
saloon AS between putting a host of
good men out of a legitimate bust
ness by practically conf1scating their
property, am for the square deal and
against such rotten tactics every time.
Nothing is more foolish, nothing
more at variance with sound public
policy than to enact law which by
reason of the conditions surrounding
the community in which it is declared
to be law, is Incapable of enforcement
Such an instance is presented by
laws, by which the sale of
liquors is prohibited I'M
der penalty in localities where the
public sentiment of the community
does not and Will not sustain the en-
forcement of the law. In cases where
the sale of liquor cannot be prohibited
in foot If is far better to regulate and