Evening journal., 1914-07-18

net prohibit" Neither does the law
against theft and murder prevent
these crimes. but do the people advo-
cate the repeating OF those laws be-
cause OF that fact?
Poor old Maine is cited as "hor-
rible example" OF the ineifectiveness .
of prohibition. Why not refer TO
Kansas once in a while. which pre- /
sents a striking example of how pro- /
hibition does prohibit. We suggest /
that you carefully read the article by
Mr.. VIM Allen White. which ap-
peared in the Saturday Evening Post,
Of July H.
Your reference in your editorial OF
July l3 TO Kent and Sussex counties
is unfortunate in face of the facts.
This writer heard on Tuesday even
ing OF the present week one Of the
most prominent citizens OF Sussex
county, a christian and a gentleman,
widely known throughout the State,
and a man who is in position to know
whereof he speaks, say that prior
to the closing of the saloons of
Georgetown. S25.O00 annually was
paid over the bars Of that town for
LIQUOR and that under existing con-
NAitOur nt WOuiu We MAAAihb W sun
antee. that not more than S2,5O0 was
spent l. would seem from this
statement that prohibition is fairly
prohibitivo even in Georgetown.
Furthermore. your attention Is
called TO the fact that, despite the
claims of the liquor traffic. the con
sumption of liquors in the country as
whole IS on the decrease. Reports
OF the Internal Revenue Commits
sioner just made public show that
IN the first eleven months Of the cur
rent fiscal year there was a decrease
of nearly s4,000,000 In the income
from the manufacture and sale Of
distilled liquors and the estimate Of
the June receipts indicate that the
net slump Of all kinds of int0xicants
for the year will approximate S3,5O0,-
600. While this may not be large
I sum compared with the whole amount
expended for liquors in the United
/ States, II shows a balance on the
right side OF the ledger and refutes
/ absolutely the claim OF the liquor
traffic and It's friends that consump.
ton Is on the increase. II is also
orthy Of note that while the pei
capita consumption of liquors for the
entire country in 1912 was little
over twenty-one gallons, In the pro
hihltion States IT, was but slightly
over two gallons.
take II that the editor of THE
! EVENING JOURNAL has read an
/ editorial I'm q Philadelphia paper on
July IA, but in order that his readers
may get some idea OF what other
editors are thinking ! beg 10 quote
as follows:
Regardless Of the statistics as to
the consumption of whiskey. the ac-
| ton Of the Kentucky Distlllers' AS
sociation in securing an agreement
10 keep the production Of its stills
to 2O.000,O0O gallons because OF over
accumulation of stock in the ware
houses contains a suggestion that the
advocates OF temperance are making
more headway than had been antici-
pated by the whiskey men,
Tho spread of the prohibition move
ment is not void of effect in the re-
ducing of the amount of drinking
even though it put not complete
ban. on the sale Of intoXicants-
Al the annual meeting OF the Ma
tional Retail Liquor Dealers Asso'
ciation, held in Washington d. c.
J June last. President Farley said, IN
referring to the necessity for unioniz
ing the brewers, wholesalers and re
ttilers:
1T must be done to save the In
dustry and TO check the present pro
libition wave which is rushing
sweepingly over the country"
II prohibition does not prohibit
why the need for protection agains
prohibition? II the consumption o
J LIQUOR is on the increase. why or
! ganize the various branches of thu
business to protect against prohibi
ton? The logical thing to do, 1
their word be true, is for all Of then
to join in the movement for Stat
! and national prohibition so that tn
, consumption of liquor will be double
3 and everybody will be happy.
The truth is they know that IN
/ clock of opportunity has struck tn
doom of the liquor traffic in tn
E United States. They know that the
- are at the bar of public opinion an
. the verdict will be against them. The
e know that the use of liquor is a
e economic waste. They know thf
!. the great industrial plants and col
= poratiOns throughout the country al
h putting the ban on the drinking {
r intoxicants by employees. They kno
4 and have acknowledged that the en-
v Of their business is not far of an
all this fubdub about prohibition NJ
n prohibiting is simply case Of n
l. wish being father TO the thought
l. In conclusion permit me to say thi
! the proposition before the public
v Delaware as well as the Union at tn
n time is not whether local option Law
!, are effective or whether prohibitio
a prohibits, but the vastly larger on
!, as 20 whether a great Christian ns
!, ton can longer afford 10 remain
co-partnership with business tn
effect of which is disastrous 10 il
+, citizens from every standpoint-ecC
I, nomic. physical and moral. Let
- stick to the real issue.
!. In word. there is not singl
u sound argument which can be az
:. vanced by anyone in defense of th
= liquor business. Then why continu
the traffic?
Sincerely yours,
CHARLES Al TWTCTEE