Askov American. [volume] (Askov, Pine County, Minn.) 1914-current, 1931-03-26

HoiouShiy III real uCIHOCi dtlC mar
ner as to the wet and dry question
and as to whether we want to send
our youth of the country out on the
battlefields again to slaughter others
whom they have no quarrel with.
While on the liquor question l may
as well set forth some of my ideas
along this line. In the first place we
cannot legislate morals and the ten
dency along that line has undoubt-
edly been too prevalent. l believe
that the Eighteenth amendment was
too drastic, it went to far. If, instead
Of legislating all alcoholic drinks, ex-
cept for beer containing one-half of one
per cent, out of legal existence, the law
would have permitted the ordinary
beer manufactured by the brewers in
the old days, believe we would have
Jared better and there would not have
followed the public resentment. TAX
ing all the alcoholic drinks away all
at once caused a remonstrance that
has been exceedingly difficult to over
come. We cannot change the habits
of people by law. 1t had much better
come by education and by temperance.
1t is better for people to see for
themselves the folly of drink and that
it serves no good purpose. We were
going along in good shape in this di-
rection prior to the Eighteenth amend
ment and the federal enforcement act
in 1920. Thousands of villages and
cities and many counties had already
voted dry and 80 of the 4S states
were dry. The drastic federal law
was likely too big step all at once.
However we must not loose sight of
the fact that bootleggers and blind
pigs existed before the country was
voted dry and should we go back to
legalized liquor we would still have
that element to contend with. In the
city of Minneapolis where there were
435 saloons in the pre-Volstead days
those saloon-keepers petitioned the
city council to clean out the blind
pigs, claiming that there, were 1000
of them and that they were paying no
license money into the city treasury
and the city was getting no revenue
from them. The saloonkeepers were
paying license of $1,000 each annually
they argued and were entitled to pro-
lection.
The federal prohibition law has
likely caused some falling-off of re-
spect for all laws and that is one bad
feature, and in fact it is very bad
feature if the disrespect for law has
become as bad as some claim it is.
However, those who are dry, don't
care for drink, and want to remain
sober and be able to do their work
can do so whether or not we have ma
tional prohibition. If l remember
correctly the national prohibition en-
forcement officer ruled recently that
there would be no agents shopping
into homes where beer and wine was
made only for home consumption,
where it was not sold or peddled to
others. The personal liberty argu-
ment has been used excessively and
if those who voted villages, cities,
counties and states dry really believe
in having it dry and are opposed to
drinking would talk that way there
would be less breaking of the law.
We know the evils of drink and if
we can get along without it we will
fare better.
But in these days of depression and
Capitalization of wealth there are
matters of much greater importance
to be settled than that of the liquor,
and let us not lose sight of that. Know
ing full well that legislator would
be criticised for voting either way on
the state referendum bill, l simply
voted as 1 deemed best to save the
state expense on a measure that would
have no definite result. AS above
stated if change is desired make it
an issue in the next congressional
campaign.
HJALMAR PETERSEN.