The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1932-03-21
YOUTH ON PROHIBITION
Bismarck, North Dakota,
March IA, 1882.

xVO YIN KnOk1xOxk xON
Bismarck, North Dakota,
March IA, 1882.
Editor. Tribune:
During the last few weeks I have
read the various arguments voiced by
other readers of the Bismarck Trib-
une as expressed in the Peoples For
UNI for the continued support Of the
present Prohibition Law. would, at
this time. desire especially to make
reply to the articles written on the
subject by Mr.. Robert Klandt Of He
bron, to Mr.. VIM. H. Wilson Of Dris-
coll and to the reader who has chos-
en- to style himself as Dakota
Farmer from Underwood. Every In
dividual Is, of course. entitled to an
opinion on the subject Of national
prohibition and most surely everyone
should have definite conviction con-
corning the constructive good or the
detrimental evil of the amendment
since It's enactment.
Prohibition is wrong In principle!
The consumption of liquor by man IS
not an unnatural phenomenon. 1t IS
not vice or q crime. 1t does not
conflict with the divine law OF Goo
and. consequently, 1t should not be
withheld from those who desire 1t by
man-made law. It Is absurd to at
tempt to make a comparison between
LIQUOR consumption and other crimes
which are punishable by law in tins
land. Liquor consumption does not
necessarily become vice or crime
until the individual person proceeds
to use drink beyond the limits OF hu-
man respect and endurance. A dl1Ier-
entiation between drink and its ex-
cesses is Just the margin OF difference
between a natural inclination and
vice crime. When drinking Is prac-
ticed to such an extent that drunken
ness is the evil result 1t must be pun
ished as any other malicious influence.
However. excessive drinking can be
dealt with equally we'll under a ban
ner other than prohibition without
any more disastrous consequences. II
prohibition ever were able to be ad-
ministered satisfactorily to the sue
cessful elimination Of the average
prohibitionist's dream, 1t would Stlll
be wrong tn principle, although per-
haps effectual in practice. BY pro-
htbiting the sale Of liquor to the pop
ulace we are depriving the prole-
tariat Of the liberty to have what
they desire, of another American
heritage and of each individuals
God-given right!
Prohibition Is a waste OF PUBIC
money. The result which was to
have been expected has not been
brought about. while huge expendi-
lures to support the useless legisla-
ton has been forced upon the people
and their government. During the
period of years since the enactment
Of the eighteenth amendment these
appropriations to enforce an unnatur-
al law have proven nothing but a
distinct loss to the American public.
TO establish a prohibition law which
might prove to be of some construc-
tive good it would doubtless be nee
essary to provide an additional eX-
penditure of other millions. Neither
the government Of the people nor the
people themselves are in any condi-
ton to assume greater obligations
than they already have to carry. The
proletariat are struggling to overcome
an economic depression while our
government is desperately striving to
offset a treasury deficit Of many mil
lions by economy. Can that deficit
be entirely blamed upon decrease
Of postal receipts, as governmental
heads and statisticians would have
US believe? In view of additional
construction needs to caro- for greater
increase of the mails it doesn't seem
conceivable or logical! On the other
hand, the deficit might be materially
lessened by a repeal Of the prohibi-
ton act. Shall we be forced to ac-
cept and uphold law which tends
to increase taxes. to increase the
treasury deficit when we know that
the result for which the law was first
intended will never be achieved?
Repeal of the prohibition law would
be of aid to the grain farmer! Why?
Because it would enable him to dis
pose of certain amount of his grain
which-in view of the great surplus
Is practically Of no worth. The sur
plus is a myth: it is. in reality. an
under-cOnSumption of these COM
modities that forces the prices to
lower levels. Free sale of liquor would
demand greater consumption OF
the commodities which remain at
present unused and would have some
effect toward higher price level. 1t
is absurd to believe that the Ameri-
can farmer should feed his small
grain to swine because he would not
better himself since there is, in EVIL
dence. an under conSumption of meat
in the land also which forbids the
production of swine or other meat
for profit. Moreover, barley and other
small grain is not as good hog feed
a. corn. II, then, corn liquor should
be curtailed. more corn would be
available for preparing the hog for
market and the barley, which is now
being fed to three-cent hogs, would
be available for the manufacture OF
liquor to aid the farmer. If the brew
cries and other manufactures used
in the manufacture and the distribu-
ton Of legalized liquor were to return,
it Is only reasonable to believe that
many thousands Of the unemployed
would prosper through work. More
over, other national businesses would
profit and the public would also bene-
ut through virtual decrease in the
strength Of the breadline backed by
charity. Here I would like to state
that the inebriate asylums are per-
haps dissolved but the reform schools
and the penitentiartes are most full
70 capacity. Which is worse? Which
are q greater burden and expense?
What proof have we that inquiry
II on the increase? And, If so, what
Is the reason for the increase Of in
iQuity? Perhaps the temptations to
which we. the younger generation,
are submitted are 50 much greater in
this day Of the more modern age
that it really requires an infinitely
stronger will to cope with them than
tt did In the ages past. Might not
this be true? The environment and
nGtural home training Of any indi-
vldual Is sufficient cause to endow
0tle with success or the failure to
succeed. The moral training received