Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1926-07-26
Vets Frequently Down, But
Never Out, in Fight That
Began in 1894.
LIQUOR MAY BE DRUNK
AT WILL IN ONES HOME
English View That Domicile Is
Castle Causes Liberality in
Prohibition Act.
ARTICLE II.
BY BEN McKELWAY.
Stan Correspondent of The star

otAH correspondent OF Inc star.
TORONTO. Ontario-The Province
Of Ontario is an old battle-ground
where the skeletons Of many good ar
gument for and against prohibition lie
bleaching in the sun. And while the
forces dedicated to shifting the Demon
Rum are victorious for the present
in that they have succeeded n keep
ing this area dry--in fancy If not in
fact-their opponents are not idle.
Seldom day passes but that the gun
of some ardent. wet explodes with a
laundering detonation which sends
Icy chills up and down the backbones
OF the drys. But hardly has the echo
died away before the drys rally to
their posts and set down a standing
barrage through which they dare the
vets to advance.
In other words. the issue over pro-
hibition here is far from dead. 1t has
more lives than a cat. The drys maui
It,. smother 1t, feed 1t poison, stamp
on 1t. then take 1t down to the shores
of Lake Ontario and fling II far out
into the deep. But while the splash
may sound convincing, they've hardly
finished shaking hands all around be.
fore the thing comes back as good as
new and asks for another fight.
First Votes are Futile.
AS far back as 1894 the provincial
government of Ontario was solving
the liquor question. In that year, the
premier OF the province submitted the
question of prohibition to a popular
vote, with the result that 1872, 900 of
the people voted for prohibition and
10000 of them voted against 1t. But
the government Is not bound to heed
such a vote. There was no prohibi
tion. Six years later the same ques-
tion was put to another vote, and pro-
hibition won by a majority Of $4,000,
but there was no prohibition. In 1902
there was another referendum. Pro-
hibition won by majority Of $4,000
but still 1t didn't mean anything. The
votes, evidently, were simply put up
as weather vanes and when dry
wind was found TO be blowing, taken
down again.
In 1905 prohibition made some ad-
tances. The then premier prohibited
sale of liquor to children. bartenders
were made liable for ipfractions of the
law, municipal councils were required
to submit local option bylaws at the
request of 81 percent of the electorate;
fines. for selling liquor without a
license were doubled and. other regula-
lions designed to curb drinking in
public places were enacted. The idea
was that some restriction was pref
erabie<to sudden and absolute prohi-
bition.
Then. in 1914, the war came.
Soldiers filled the streets Of Canadian
towns and cities and after the days
work getting ready to fight, they got
drunk. as soldiers always have done.
Canada put in force an emergency
prohibition law. which, in effect, gave
the provinces the right to make their
own laws on prohibition, and two
years later, in 1916, Ontario climbed
up and took front seat on the band
wagon and passed temperance law
in company with every other Canadian
province except Quebec. The law is
known as the o. T. A.-Ontario Tenn
perance Act-and has been on the
statute books ever since. Other
provinces have abandoned theirs, but
Ontario clung to hers and has been
it regularly.
Situation is Unique.
Ontario's temperance act was de-
signed to prevent the sale of liquor
within the province. While the ques-
ton has never been judicially decided,
it has been the theory that federal
or Dominion law transeends a pro.
vincial law, and for that reason On
tario did not and has not sought to
CONTINUED on Page 8, Column 81