The Muskogee cimeter. [volume] (Muskogee, Indian Territory, Okla.) 1901-19??, 1917-01-06
ASKS JUSTICE FOR LIQUOR
Men AS WELL AS FOR
LANDOWNERS
INNATE HONESTY"
Of the People Fails to Manifest
Itself When They Are Voting
Upon the DRY" Question, De.
clares President of National
Liquor Dealers Association

The following letter on the injustice
Of confiscating the liquor dealers prop.
erty signed by Joseph Debar, presi.
dent OF the National Wholesale Liquor
Dealers association, appeared in the
Cincinnati Times-Star:
In your issue of December G. you
print an editorial under the caption
of TOO Much for California" calling
attention 10 the refusal of the people
of California TO vote for a single land
tax amendment which you state was
'coniiscation pure and simple"
AS an American citizen having pride
Of country, l would like to think you
were right when you say ''at the back
of the popular mind there is an innate
honesty and respect for the rights OF
individuals which, when n question Of
con'iscation is put squarely up to the
voters can be counted on to produce a
large negative majority at the polls"
This high estimate OF the American
voter seems not to be borne out by
recent results in Michigan and other
States where millions OF dollars worth
OF brewery and othe property has
been voted to the scrap heap.
Destruction and Confiscatlon.
Mr. Bryan, at a dinner given to him
by alleged political admirers in Wash.
ington on December 6, is reported as
advocating that this destruction and
conliscation lie carried out on national
lines.
The moral distinction between con.
fiscating property by an unjust land
tax or by vote for prohibition Is not
apparent to those who view the ques.
tion without prejudice. The land in
California which the voters refused To
contiscate and for which refusal you
give them just praise, never paid q
penny to the Federal Government for
any purpose.
Breweries and distilleries of the
United States built up under the fos-
tering care OF the Government and
protected by a multiplicity OF its laws
have for more than a lifetime paid to
the Federal Government In the shape
OF taxes more than one.third OF its
total revenue.
Why then should not the Innate
honesty" Of our people manifest itself
at the polls when voting on prohibi.
tion?
Some voters announce their objec.
ton to tao ss!con as q reason for vot.
Ing dry.
Mr.. Bryan, with his usual capacity
for distortion OF facts, makes his plea
for prohibition on the ground of ex.
terminating the saloons.
"Not Honest"
That Is not an honest presentation
OF the question. Mr.. Bryan knows
that what he Is urging is not the de.
struction Of the saloon alone but OF
the whole industry destruction OF
breweries, distilleries and OF all dis
tributing plants where liquors are
sold.
Why should not your plea for fair
ness and your commendation of JUS
tice in California apply to and bs
urged upon the voters OF other states
when asked to vote incidentally fol
the elimination of saloons, but in fac,
for the destruction of millions of dol
lars worth of brewery and distillery
property?
What you would deem wrong in Cal
ifornia was 40 less wrong in Nebrasks
or Michigan.
II the breweries and distilleries o
these States as well as the saloons
were, as claimed, voted out fol
the public good, then why should moi
the public, by compensation to the
owners of these plants. pay for The
cost OF this debatable experiment?
Is this not especially true when al
the people of these States have shared
In the benefits Of low rates OF dirsc
taxation which these revenues from
liquors have for years made possible