The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-02-20

drunkard is also a public nuisance
The personal liberty, argument Is
obliged to go. down before the gem
erai welfare.
Try to Justify Course.
And there were some Of the sena-
tors who tried to justify their course
by the declaration that, IL state
wide prohibitory law was enacted, 1t
could not be enforced. But this again
was not the issue before the senate Of
virginia. The only question was the
giving to the people the right TO de-
eide for themselves whether they de-
sire a statewide law. But these gem
tlemen arrogate to themselves the
right TO decide this question for the
people, on the ground that they
should not vote to submit TO the peo-
pie this question, when 1t has been
fully demonstrated that Prohibition
Is a Failure Here again the lack
of logic is Iamentable; indeed. 1t
would be absurd, ridiculous. were 1t
not so serious in Its results. Hear
the argument: A majority OF the peo-
pie decide TO forbid the doing Of a
certain thing. for the sake of the
public good. Some persons determine
that they will do the forbidden thing,
and Notwithstanding the prohibition,
they proceed to do 1t. Whereupon 1t
lis argued that because some persons
violate the law, therefore the law Is
a failure. But WAS it expected when
the law was passed that everybody
would obey the lawf Was IL agreed
that IL anybody violated the law, 1t
would be repealed As a matter of
fact. was not the law passed because
certain things were being done which
were damaging to the material or
i-,aH u-ltfa Fa NJ ha rtfv Stats m
nation, and the law was passed. and
penalties annexed to deter men from
doing those damning things. So long
as the fear OF suffering the penalty
Is greater than the anticipation of
pleasure 10 be obtained from the law
violation, the law will not be yio-
lated. But when the prize Is suffi-
ciently attractive to run the risk Of
detection and OF punishment. the law
will be violated. But that Is no rea-
son for the repeal Of the law. IL may
be the reason for the strengthening
of the law and the pressing for it's
enforcement. Take, for example, the
game and oyster laws. It Is decided
for the good of the State that birds
should be killed and oysters should
be taken from the rocks only at GER
tain seasons. Certain penalties are
annexed for the violation of these
laws. But there are certain people
who want to shoot game and take
oysters whenever they please and
wherever they please. and they do so
whenever their appetite for food or
i their covetousness for money exceeds
their fear of he fine or imprison-
ment for VOCATION of the law. Do
/ the senators rise up and plead that
/ the game and oyster laws must be
repealed because some persons vio-
! late the law? Do they cry 'Prohi-
/ bition Is failure? Repeal the law.
! Let the game be shot and the oys-
I ters be taken from the rock because
appetite and covetousness will not
obey the law? Certainly not. They
declare. THE law must be enforced.
! Increase the penalties until men will
not be willing to run the risk for
the sake OF the possible gain. Add
to the police force and maintain q
strict patrol"
The general assembly of Virginia
passed q law on the subject OF CO.
caine and provided penalties. But
the slaves of covetousness and appe-
tite continue TO run the risk and vio-
( late the law. Has there been any
cry that Prohibition Is failure
the law should be repealed? No,
the cry is Stamp out the traffic: In
crease the penalties and use greater
/ vigilance"
/ The law Of the State endeavors to
protect the chastity of our daughters
from the appetite and covetousness
i of men, and severe penalties are an
nexed. But the age OF consent la
violated seduction under promise OF
marriage is practiced. and sometimes
even horrible assaults are committed
and disreputable houses are main
tained In many places.
Utterly Illogical.
Do these senators rise mn in their
places and declare prohibition Is a
failure THE laws should Be repealed
because appetite and covetousness OF
men impel them to run the risk OF
even the death penalty" No, there
is no clamor for the repeal of the
laws protecting our daughters against
fiust.
And so we see that these gentle
men are utterly Illogical in their po-
sition concerning the passage of a Law
against the sale OF intoxicants. The
question is not today, and never has
been. VIII the law prohibiting the
sale of Intoxicating liquors be vio-
lated ?'' but the question is Ought the
State 70 refuse 10 license the sale oil
intoxicants? ?" If SO, let us prohibit
the granting of license. and provide
penalties for the violation of the law
and if the law is violated. increase
the penalties for It's violation, and de-
mand greater activity on the part OF
the officers OF the law. So much for
the logic OF the situation
Now Il Mord as to the facts While
mo prohibition worker has ever claim
cd that the prohibitory law would not
be violated, yet we do claim that the
prohibitory law has greatly decreased
the manufacture and sale Of intoxi-
cants where the law is in force, And
on this point we turn TO Uncle Sam
books and get the official figures
Taking the reports Of collections
made by the internal revenue depart
ment. II the collections were in pro-
portion TO the population and the
amount paid by other States, Maine
would pay nine times as much, Kan
sas eleven times, Oklahoma nineteen
times, and North Dakota twenty-nine
times as much as each of these States
pay at the present TIME. Either pro-
hihition greatly reduces the consump-
ton of intoxicants, or the internal
revenue reports are utterly unrelia4
BILE.
With these reports agree the pei
capita consumption of liquor of the
various States. The average per cap