New-York tribune., 1918-05-18
IN itself will warrant either the CON-
einuancc of the industry or wipinr IL
out entirely. p'"s ~
Says Prohibition Will
Lead to Moonshininp

A@~A0 W lFlOOIlSnlnlnp
!. ASK q prohibitionist this ono oues-
.'oh' III ne were employed or engaged
IN an industry in which his entire LIES
mornings were invested, would he feel
% tnat the government was justified in
ctoslng ms business up at once, ex-
aee'hg from him a so-called floor-tax
ana then preventing him from dis
posing OF or selling his merchandise .
| would he be contented and satisfied
mat he is being dealt with honor
aoiy and justly? In ninety-nine cases
out OF one hundred seek and YOU will
ma that the agitator is the paid em-
pioye and his agitation is not from his
neart but for the consideration he re-
ceives therefor.
:. why is General Pershing requesting
liquor for the boys in the trenches at
the front in France? The fact Is that
from pneumonia. You can Judge from
tins how many might have been saved
II n they had received little liquor,
IKE the French or The English. How
much longer will we of the rInited
States be behind the times?
A state like New York, which ia com-
posed of the cosmopolitan element.
should not be dictated to by a West.
ern farmer or Southern egotist. Pro-
hlbition will bring about moonshining
IN almost every tenement house in
account of the high cost of the ma
terlals and the high taxation, l am in
formed that moonshining has increased
400 per cent in the last year.
Another thing to take into consider
alton is finance. The Federal author
tiles at Washington received in taxes
Tor Liquors during the year of 1917
S430, 100000, while the State of New
York received for state licenses $30,-
we will wipe out both these incomes.
How are we to make up this great and
vast deficit? LOUIS C. BALSAM.
Booze Is Doomed;
Whiskey Is Dead
Personal liDerty-the main argu-
ment advanced against prohibition
is no argument at all, writes William
H. Stanley, of 100 Hudson Street.
Let him tell why:
To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: | have been reading with much
interest and profit the discussion on
prohibition running in your columns
and wish to congratulate you on once
more having the courage of your con-
vlctlons. For many years | have been
interested in the subject Of prohibi-
tlon, and during all these years I have
never yet heard an 'unanswerable arru-
ment in favor of booze.
The main argument advanced in it's
favor is the individual desire to use
lt-ln other words, personal liberty,
which is no argument when set oppo-
CsNnd af ho
nifty, and because, furthermore, there
is no such thing as absolute personal
liberty and should not be. Let the
chap who thinks there is such thing
as personal liberty exceed the speed
laws, cut down a tree without a per
init or do any one of thousand other
things and he will soon find out how
little personal liberty he has.
Booze--all kinds of its doomed;
whlskey is dead; so the liquor interests
are now rushing to the defence of beer
and light wines-the last stand. The
dlfference between beer and light wines
and whiskey is only one degree; and
the TACT that beer and light wine are
considered by some advocates Of alco
hol the lesser evils makes beer and
hght vine no less an evil; and when
people like Jacob Rupert, for in
stance, make the statement that the
european countries addicted to the use
Of beer and light wine have never suf
1ered they are simply making state
ments and not proving facts. I oues-
ton whether even Mr.. Rupert to-day
would hold up the beer-drinking Ger
man nation as an example Of human
kindness and as an example of the
highest development of civilization.
Alcohol!c liquors are soon going to
o., ne entirely thing of the past, and
the tn sooner we shall be able to attend
the funeral of King Alcohol. So per
maps even you do not realize what
wonderful work you are doing in
throwing open your columns to a dis
cussion of the subject.
II you care to go to the trouble and
possible expense, I think you can very
readily find out to your own satisfac-
ton whether people who have once
llved under wet laws and now live
under dry laws welcome the change.
l am speaking from personal experi-
ence when I tell you that the majority
OF the people in the states of Oregon
ana Washington, which up to three or
TOUR years ago were soaking wet and
nov, are bone dry. would not change
pack to wet condition under any cir
cumstances, and this goes for the peo-
PIE who were wet advocates when the
states were wet as we'll as for the ad-
herents of prohibition.
W. H. STANLEY.
P.@Ll~ AHa ~