The daily Nome industrial worker., 1916-07-24
BOOZE.

From time to time we hear it la- mented that prohibition cannot be enforced and high minded people, the latest of whom is Cardinal Gib- bons, declare their mind to this effect
 If prohibition did not effectively reduce the consumption of liquor l. is quite clear that brewers and di- stillers would not oppose it. Why should they? There is no reason in the world if this prohibition could not be enforced why the liquor in- terests should oppose it at all. It is or ought to be quite immaterial whether the intoxiating liquor is sold by blind pig or by saloon, as far as it's makers are concerned, and the tone of the brewery or di- stillery owned saloon mas never been of such a standard that it would lead one to believe the ma- nufacturers were very much con- cerned under what condition the goods they made were sold.
 But the simple fact is that the breweries and the distilleries know full well that with prohibition comes the decrease in the safe or their goods and even in a place like Seattle or a State like Washington where liquor can be secured for home consumption if required, the saloons and liquor dealers, the brewers and distillers joined hands to defeat the bill.
 The very painful fact for the H. quor interests is that prohibition does prohibit.
 Your cannot fool them. They know what is what. You can de, clare all you want that the con sumption of liquor will not be stop ped or hampered by the prohibition law, the distiller or the brewer who knows much more about the facts, because the facts touch his pocket book, is too well posted to accept your statement. He goes to work and gets busy flooding the country with literature all of which has for it's purpose the object of defeating prohibition.
 It is quite astonishing that the very same purpose for which this argument is issued is also respons' jble for another which is the very opposite of that. That is that pro- hibition by stopping persons pri. vilege of drinking is an arbitary in- terference with the natural right of the individual. The liquor inter- ests lay their bet both ways in the sure and certain hope of winning.
 Obviously if prohibition does not prohibit, as the liquor men and friends claim, then equally obvi- ously it interfered with no rights, and obviously also if it does stop a man from having his drop of Ii quor, it provides very real prohi- bition.
 This effort to straddle two horses is really significant of the despera- tion of any cause and the liquor men ought to exercise more judg- ment in the argument they put up,,
 Cardinal Gibbons intimates that prohibition will compel the booze fighters to eschew good whiskey and take to the bad back door material. To certain extent he may be cor rect. Yet certain it is that the bad material will be available to 50 many less than the good whiskey before administered delight and death to, that the people who coi- slider things with larger persprc tive can afford to consider the ?co. hibition future with some equan- amity.
 Good whiskey is relative ex- pression. Back in younger days the writer recalls how the golden glow of youthful hopefulness was in ceased by the forty and five differ ent delights in glass of whiskey, and how one shrewd old saloon keepr who when asked for glass of his best significantly suggested that "bad was the best of it". Ano no matter who he is that defends alcoholic liquor, he will reach that time when he will agree with the saloonist that bad is the best of 1t.