The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1917-01-25
PROHIBITION BILL.

10 the Editor. | nave been aSked
by SO many people that | have met, as
well as by letter from outside points,
as to what are my impressions of
House Bill No. 1872, which is called
"a of expressing some of my
views. Let me say in a general way
that the bill Is a most excellent docu-
ment, covering in a very compre-
hensiye way all the features Of the
liquor traffic, and proposing to keep
1t strictly under the ban of state
laws. Section So is the only part
that | take exception to. This gives
permission ~ any person, who. on his
or her own testimony is not a minor
nor a drunkard. to import for bever-
age purposes, one quart of spirituous
or vinous liquors or three gallons of
malt, brewed or fermented liquors
every sixty days.
This section is contrary to the
spirit of the amendment voted on
and passed by a large majority Of
the voters of the state last November.
| did considerable campaigning for
three weeks before election, but so
far as | know the campaign was not
a mo saloon" campaign, but accord
ing to the terms of the amendment, a
prohibition" campaign. If the SUI
perintendent of the Antisaloon league
was carrying on a n saloon cam
paign he was either a step in ad-
vance or a step behind the other pro
hibition workers. One IA readily
see that the whole prohibition propa-
ganda cannot be wholly dominated by
the views of one man.
This section No. 50 is quite evil
IDENTIFY class legislation" Many men
have said to me, You fellows can
afford to send away and get your
liquor in quantities and keep il in
the cellar, but the poor man cannot
afford to do this, and because he goes
into a saloon and buys a glass of
beer, you wan to shut up the saloon.
When you fellows are ready to quit
we are" And who can say, in view
of the bill just now before the house,
that they are not right. This class
of men have said to me recently,
I'VE thought that we were to have a
the rich mans cellar and so we voted
for prohibition"
The quantity is too large for per
sons unfortunately to order. If a
man has a wife and a hired man, he
can have three quarts of whisky and
nine gallons of beer in his cellar for
use every sixty days. A pretty good
jagl The whole bunch can go on a
foot" for a week at a stretch. II
would seem to me il there Is neces-
sity for having liquor that the state
should have a depot in each town or
township where a person could go
and on sworn testimony get n drink
each day and 10 more.
Few men are a Judge of how much
is just enough liquor to use. In dis
c~ussing the matter with one of our
legislators on Saturday last, he eX-
pressed the time worn idea that it is
not the use, but abuse of liquor that
make men legislate against 1t. From
the time of Noah down to the pres
ent time il has been evident that q
man himself is not the best judge of
use and abuse. And 1t is because
that any use had led to abuse that
the nations today are putting the ban
on all use Of intoxicating liquor and
are determined TO cut out the bust
ness, root and branch. 1t is only pro-
longing crime to say that we will spin
IL out two years longer,
y 1t is argued, Shall we make a
man a criminal because he has a lit
tie liquor in his cellar; shall we ar
rest him and jail him and fine him
for this?" | answer, Shall we
make a mar a criminal for giving a
little to his n%eighbor of that which
he considers good for himself?" This
is what the new law will do If il Is
passed. Why not quit mincing and
cut out the whole thing. Ii Is only a
matter of appetite and sentiment.
Cut 1t out. Let the legislators frame
their bill according to the will of the
people expressed in the November
election and then let us all join with
the prohibition officer to keep the
state dry, and a state of which we
may all be well proud.
&C. McKibbin.