El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1916-11-18
Inhibition
NJ arc hing 0 n
By ]. L. CAMPBELL

The results Of the voting. on other
Issues were generally a remarkably
even division The only land slide was
The sweep toward national prohibiuon-
Nfchfxan. Montana, Nebraska, South
Dakota, and Alaska voted dry, ana
Florida and Utah elected governors and
legislatures pledged 10 the enactment
Of state wide statutory prohibition
Twenty five Of the IS states have
now declared for prohibition Mary
land voted by county units. losing
nothing for prohibition but adding sew
eral dry counties.
Missouri and California alone returned
najorities against prohibition. but
outside Of St Louis, Missouri voted dry
by a substantial majority.
In Arkansas, Arizona Colorado, Ore
gon. and Washington, prohibition was
on trial by proposals for backward
steps, letting down the bars, but never
a backward step was taken anywners,
reaction being turned down emphatic
ally
Arkansas and Arizona decisively
strengthened their prohibition laws.
In the last three years. II states
have declared for state wide prohibi-
tion- And Canada has been sweeping
toward national prohibition with equal
rapidity. With one exception, the
western provinces Of the British en-
pire in America are dry. The province
OF Ontario is dry as q war measure.
The prohibition fight in Canada is now
eentered around the province of Que
In the United States SO percent Of the
national territory is legally dry and IS
percent Of the population lives herein.
% the zezS counties IN continental
United States. 20zT were legally dry
prior to the election, according 10 the
records Of the Anti-Saloon league. Ap-
proximately 200 additional counties
we're made dry by the election. leav-
ing only S35 wet counties OF approx
mately Is percent Of the total number
The most significant thing in the re-
cent vote on prohibition Is the revela-
ton OF q changing sentiment favorable
70 prohibition IN large cities in dry
states In 1914, the state of Washington
voted dry, Seattle, however. returning a
vet majority Of $1,000. In the recent
election. Seattle returned a majority of
10000 against a proposed amendment
permitting the manufacture OF beer in
Washington
In Ike manner. Tacoma voted wet by
$500 in 1914. but returned a majority or
10000 against the beer amendment this
year
The same thing has happened in Den
Yer, the city returning a wet majority
when the state went dry. but giving a
dry majority this year against a similar
proposed beer amendment This changed
sentiment has come about under the
operation and benefits Of prohibition
laws.
More surprising than this is the fact
that the unofficial reports credit De
troit. city Of 5000 people, and Kan
sas City, No, a city of more than ZOO
900 people, as having voted dry, not
withstanding previous heavy majorities
against prohibition Kansas City, No,
has had the advantage of first hand
knowledge of the beneficial effects of
the good enforcement OF the prohibition
laws Of Kansas, IN Kansas City, Kans.
during the past eight years
Two years ago. the wet majority IN
missouri was more than 100000. This
year, IL is only slightly more than 100
400. the latest figures indicating that
outside OF St Louis, the state voted dry
by about 1900.