The Falls City tribune. (Falls City, Neb.) 1904-191?, August 07, 1908, Image 7

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    They Explain Why Prohibition in
that State Is a Dismal
i -
Owing to the Blight of Prohibition, Im
migration into Kansas in 24 Years
Has Been Less Numerically
than the Birth Bate.
The Anti-Saloon League in state con
vention at Hastings laid plans for con
ducting a campaign in Nebraska. Res
olutions were adopted declaring the
league to be in favor of every meas
ure looking to state-wide prohibition.
The agents of the league were in
structed to work for what they call
“county option” (county prohibition)
as the most practical means of attain
ing state prohibition.
A publication said to be the official
organ of the Anti-Saloon League, in
its issue of January, 1908, said: “Wo
must have the county law to demons
trate the value of prohibition in its
larger division before we can hope to
win the state.” Superintendent Palmer
of the Anti-Saloon League in Minne
sota, recently said: “We favor ultimate
prohibition by the state, but county op
tion is the natural step thereto.” Dr,
P. A. Baker, national superintendent of
the Anti-Saloon League, said: “State
and national prohibition is the ulti
mate object of the league.”
The only active work being done
in Nebraska today to attain state pro
hibition is that performed by the
active, paid agents of the Anti-Saloon
League. They are traveling the state
getting signers to petitions to the
next legislature praying for a law pro
viding for what they term “county op
tion,” but which, in fact, is county
prohibition—there being no element
of option in it.
These facts are not disputed. The
action of the league is forcing the sup
porters of the Slocumb local license
law to take steps in its defense. This
law has been on the books since 1887,
and is regarded as the best law for
the control of the liquor traffic ever
written. Many rtates have copied it.
Since the sole aim of the Anti
Saloon League is to attain state-wide
prohibition, it is necessary for the sup
. porters of the Nebraska license law
to ascertain the facts attending the
operation of prohibition laws in other
' states. This is why the Merchants’
and Manufacturers’ association of
Omaha has collected much informa
tion on this point from so-called pro
hibition states.
Incident to this showing, the asso
ciation has collected evidence from
members of commercial clubs of
Kansas, to which the following letter
was sent, with request for opinions
on the subject:
“Today we received the following
letter from an editor of the Kimball,
Nebraska Observer:
Gentlemen:—I came here over a
year ago from Kansas, where I lived
fifteen years. I had ample opportuni
ty to observe the workings, or rather,
the non-working qualities of the pro
hibitor'- law. I am sick and tired of
drug-store saloons and joints which
pay no license and which cause more
drunkenness than open saloons. The
Slocumb law in Nebraska is all right
as- it now stands, and needs no chang
ing. A saloon run strictly in accord
ance with this law is a great deal
more to be desired than a ‘dry’ town
with Its drug stores, its bootleggers,
and its numerous shipments of mail
order booze and consequent drunken
The following replies were received:
Girard, Kan., July 13, 1908. Mer
chants’ and Manufacturers’ associa
tion. Gentlemen—Replying to your
favor of June 3d relative to the work
ings of the Prohibitory Liquor Law,
1 will say that the way the matter is
now handled, it amounts to almost a
farce. This is largely due to the way
the county and city officials handle
the matter.
In this county, I presume there are
at least one hundred saloons. They
run night and day, Sundays included.
There has never been a time since the
liquor law was enacted that it hasn’t
been sold in this county. It is worse
now than it was some years ago.—
Very truly yours, L. H. Phillips.
Wichita, Kan., July 6, 1908. Mer
chants’ and Manufacturers’ associa
tion. Gentlemen—Replying to your
favor of the 29th as to the effect of the
prohibition law in the state of Kansas
and the city of Wichita, will say that
there is no question but the law' as it
haB been enforced in this city and
other towns in Kansas has hurt the
material and business interests of the
state; however, if prohibition pro
hibited as it is intended by the .law,
results might be different, yet we have
never had an opportunity to judge, as
there seems to be just as much w'his
key and beer sold at this time as ever
there was, yet it is supposed the “lid
Is on" in Wichita. While we have no
open saloons in this city at this time,
a large number of parties who for
merly operated saloons opened up
diug stores, and the only dlffrence that
1 can see is that they are not paying
any revenue into the city, whereas
when they were running open saloons
they were paying the city quite a
From a business standpoint, I have
no doubt but what the city is more
prosperous with open saloons; yet if
the law should he enforced and prohi
bition actually prohibited, we no doubt
would be able to go ahead and build
up tlie business interests of our city
to some extent.
Tlie trouble with prohibition in this
state is that it does not prohibit. The
town is full of drug stores, joints and
dives, and the quality of the liquor is
very inferior. Some day they may he
able to make the law effective, yet af
ter over twenty years' trial, I must
say that it Is a failure as far as the
cities and towns where the sentiment
is largely in favor of open saloons. Of
course in towns where the majority
are in favor of prohibition, the traf
fic lias been restricted to a large ex
tent, but I -do not know of any town
of any size in the state where whis
key and beer cannot he bought in
violation of the law, either through
drug stores, joints, or bootleggers.
I have always been in favor of local
option and high license.—Yours truly,
F. D. Stevens, Secretary.
Leavenworth, Kan., June 1, 1908.
Merchants’ and Manufacturers’ asso
ciation. Gentlemen—Answering your
circular letter of May 29th with re
ference to the Slocumb law and the
experience of Kansas with prohibi
tion, will say that the quotation from
the letter of your Nebraska editor is
concise, explanatory and eloquent as
voicing the opinion of every Impartial
citizen of Kansas that I have ever met.
1 think that it is safe to say that none
but fanatics of the worst sort can find
any virtue in the Kansas prohibition
law’. Personally I desire to give your
association and its purpose the stamp
of my commendation, believing that
there is no other interest quite so
sensible that could be conserved. The
enforcement of the prohibition laws in
Kansas is like the pretended purifica
tion of politics according to Ingalls,—
"an iridescent dream,” If intoxicants
are to be manufactured and sold, for
heaven’s sake make the traffic pay its
share of the public expense in actual
cash rather than by penalizing the
violation of the law and adding per
petually to the cost of government. I
think that were it not for the distaste
ful notoriety which would attach, there
are several clergymen in this city who
would conscientiously sign this letter.
—Very truly yours, H. A. Hose, Secre
Fort Scott, Kan., May 30, 1908.
Gentlemen—In answer to your letter
of May 20th regarding the effect of
prohibition, will say that your editorial
Informant at Kimball, Nebraska, is en
tirely correct. The writer has studied
and seen the effects of the prohibitory
law in Kansas since ils inauguration
over twentv five years ago. At no time
—the present included—has it been
impossible to procure liquor, and that,
generally speaking, of the very worst
quality. The drunkards of ten years
ago, if still alive, are the drunkards
of today. If not alive, their placer
have been taken by an army of new
recruits. Kansas, with its natural re
sources, is the most productive state
in the Union, and yet. we have gained
less in population than almost any
other state—the increase of immigrant
population in this state being less
than the birth rate. The writer has
seen more blackmailers, more perjur
ers, and more dissension caused among
good people by this same prohibitory
law than from any other cause that
may be named. The majority of our
people in this locality fee] that it is
an unjust law and that it has greatly
hampered our progress and well-being.
I sincerely hope that the merchants
and solid business men of Nebraska
will not. burden themselves with such
a law. You may rest assured that
if they do you may say good-bye to
progress; at least, our experience is
that way. About the only benefit the
law has proven to us is to give a good
advertising medium for sensational
preachers, evangelists, and grafting
politicians Furthermore, any rep
resentative business man of any town
in Kansas, if he speaks the truth, is
bound to tell you the same thing.
Should you find that I am able to as
sist you in any way to further informa
tion, please command me, and I will be
only too willing to do all 1 can.—Yours
truly, W. B. Sellgrave, Secretary.
Winfield, Kan., June 8, 1908. Gentle
men—We acknowledge receipt of
yours of the 29th. The ex-Kansan
gives you about the correct informa
tion as to the working of the prohibi
tory law, yet we believe the drug
stores and the joint proposition are
better than the open saloons in Kan
sas. The objection we had with open
saloons in our town was that they
occupied the mast prominent loca
tions we had. While we believe that
the rent values were higher here when
they were running than they are at
the present time, as a whole we do
not believe the change affects the
value of real estate.—Yours truly,
Business Men’s association, O. H.
Bevis, President.
Coffeyville, Kan., June 1, 1908. Gen
tlemen—This will acknowledge receipt
of your favor of the 29th, addressed to
the secretary of the Citizens’ Commer
cial club, containing quotation re
ceived from the editor of a paper it
Kimball, Nebraska, relative to the
effectiveness of the Kansas prohibi
tory law. The letter as quoted, ns a
general proposition, about covers the
ground, and any opinion on tills sub
ject will naturally be of a personal
character. So far as the strict enforce
ment in the state of Kansas In the
larger towns Is concerned, I believe
it is conceded to he an absolute fail
ure; while in the rural towns It is
said to lie effective. As a matter of
fact, in this ritv some six years ago
there were a number of first class
saloons running wide open, paying a
revenue to the city of from $5d to
$100 per month. Tills had the effect
of raising the rentals of business
property to nn abnormally high point,
hut had very little, If any, effect upon
residence property. During the past
two years there have been no saloons
in tills city, but they were replaced 10
a considerable extent by drug stores
starting up and securing liquor per
mits under which liquors were dis
pensed under the provision of the
Druggists’ Permit haw,—the violations
of whieli law became so numerous that
it resulted In all druggists’ permits
being revoked. The result of tilts con
dition is, that the police court records
show a very large per cent of drunk
enness, and this is only attributable
to one source—that of bootlegging.
These conditions cause the writer to
express an opinion that the prohibitory
law is not effective in the cities; how
ever, there has been no appreciable
decrease In the rentals of business
buildings. Not being familiar with the
Slocumb law, I would he at a loss
to venture an opinion regarding it.
However, I believe tho consensus of
opinion among the business fraternity
here would favor the adoption of a
local option law.—Very respectfully,
J. P. Casey.
Hutchinson, Kan., June 2. 1908. Gen
tiemen—I will reply to your circular
letter of the 29th ultimo by giving you
my personal views only. The writer
was traveling over northern Kansas
and southern Nebraska at the time
those states adopted the present law
applying to the liquor traffic, and he
had a good chance to observe the
workings of the two plans. In Lin
coln, Nebraska, high license closed all
but three places, and by requiring ad
vance payment of the high license and
the prohibition of screens at doors and
windows, it did away with subterfuges
and sneaking, in Kansas, on the oth
er hand, the effecls of the law en
couraged perjury and sneaking, and
a general disregard of law. In my
opinion, which has been confirmed by
the test of lime, the Nebraska plan is
the best, both as a true temperance
measure and for its effects upon the
morals of the people.—Yours truly,
L. A. Beebe.
Kimball, Neb., May 29, 1908. Gen
tlemen—The little town in which I
lived in Kansas was what was termed
a “wet” town. For many years we had
two joints, operated under the fine
levy system. Every month the marshal
arrested the joint keepers, tor selling
liquor illegally, and they paid a fine
of $50 and costs per month. A preach
er came along and put them out of
business. After that there was rnoro
drunkenness, and tile formerly good
town became dead. The large number
of farmers who formerly came to town
went to other places. With the open
saloon the “city dads,” of whom 1 was
one, could control the sale of liquor,
close the places on Sunday and at 11
o’clock p. m., and at any time regulate
them and say who should not get
liquor. After they were closed, the
bootleggers got busy, and we never
could in any ease lay our finger on
the culprit. More than that, our
streets soon showed the effects of cut
ting off the license revenue—$1,200 a
year. The city went in debt, and <s
in debt today, although the same
amount of liquor is consumed. I live
in a “dry” town now and am not a user
of liquor, but I would much rather see
a saloon run under proper control
than a drug store or bootlegger under
no control at all. In Topeka, the
capital city of Kansas, there is more
liquor sold by drug stores than one
would imagine. I was a delegate in
the Republican state convention which
nominated Governor Hoch (I'm
ashamed of it) and in nearly every
block on Kansas avenue there were
from one to six drug stores, all of
which sold liquor and paid no license,
and many of them had bars in the
back room. The worst hell-hole in
Topeka was in the (—) Hotel, the
headquarters of both parties and I
actually saw men fighting to get stand
ing room at a dirty bar where stale
beer was dished up In shiny glasses as
fast as four men could draw it. These
things make one sick of prohibition
which does not now, nor never did,
prohibit. I worked on the State Regis
ter in Des Moines, Iowa, when tli^it
state had prohibition, and saw the
safne conditions. I know these things
from personal observation, as I used
to drink some myself.—Very respect
fully, R. D. Wlilson, Editor.
P, S.—The fact simmered (jown is
this: Whether we shall have the §Jo
enmb law as it now stands and tho
license money in our treasuries, or
whether the same amount of liquor
is used and the money ail go to the
seller. The drinking man %Vill drink,
no matter what the law. Isn’t it bet
ter that a part of his spendings do
some good to the public, and isn’t it
better that the fellow who sells it to
him be refused the right to give him
more than he should have?
Veteran Editor Says Prohibition Puts
Premium on Hypocrisy.
Hon. 1). R. Strooter, editor of the
Emmons County Record, published at
Hinton. North Dakota, was requested
to describe the effect of the policy of
prohibition upon tho people of that
state, wherein he has published a
paper for twenty-four years. Under
date of April 20, 1908, Mr. Streeter
writes ns follows:
"Replying to your circular, permit
me to say that wo have had constitu
tional prohibition in the state for
eighteen years. In some parts of tho
state the law is reasonably well en
forced as to saloons.
“South Dakota, settled by the same
class* of people as North Dakota—
that is, the same class of native-born
and foreign-born, German Russians
and Scandinavians being the bulk of
these from across the sea—had statu
tory prohibition several years, and
then, after giving it a fair trial, threw
It aside some years ago through the
medium of the referendum, returning
to license by a majority of several
thousand. 1 had occasion in the win
ter of 1905 and again in the winter of
1907 to obtain the figures as to retail
liquor dealers* licenses Issued In tho
two states.
"Strange ns It. may seem, prohibi
tion (n North Dakota, with less popu
lation than her southern sister, had—
and has every year for that matter—
more retail liquor dealers’ licenses
from tho federal government than tho
southern twin, working under high
license laws. This Is caused by the
fact that in some towns and villages
where there would be a saloon under
license, the business being outlawed,
the licensed saloon has been succeed
ed by a bunch of worthless blindpig
gets or boot-leggers, who are satisfied
Jo sell vilo stuff for a profit of a couple
of dollars a day, with an occasional
rest. In tho county Jail if necessary to
their business.
Drug-Store Saloons.
"Another cause of tie preponder
ance of federal liquor licenses In this
state over South Dakota Is tho multi
plicity of one-horse drug stores, there
being at least three times as many
drug stores in this state as thero Is a
legitimate business for. Still, I think
it will be a long time before prohibi
tion will Do taken from our organic
law, for the reason that the drinkers,
being able to get their booze shipped
in from across the state lino In either
of four directions, do not bother them
selves as to whether or not so-called
prohibition prevails In this state.
“Going about the state and talking
with the people, you would think that
a majority of them were for it: but it
is a sort of standing joke among the
drinkers here to laud prohibition.
I have published a paper in this (Rm
mens) county since 1884, part of the
time under license and part under pro
hibition, and I find little difference as
to the amount of liquor drunk. Those
who wore drunkards under liceiise are
drunkards under prohibition. I can
see no change. But If Nebraska
wants to put a premium on hypocrisy
and violation of law, she should at
once follow in the footsteps of North
Dakota. In this state, were there
a federal law preventing the inter
state carriage of whisky, wine and
beer to all but druggists, and tho
druggists’ permit to sell were taken
away by the legislature, we would be
tumbling over one another to get un
der the license banner.
“You arc at liberty to use my let
ter. I have never been disposed to
hide my light under a bushel in the
matter of opposition to the prohibi
tion law. I have published a paper
in this county twenty-four years, and
I am firmer in the belief each suc
ceeding year that prohibition by stat
ute or in the organic law is one of
the most costly and useless make
shifts that could be put into the code
or constitution. I opposed it when
in this state it was adopted by a
minority vote—that is. by 1100 odd
votes, with 2,800 failing to nnu the
paragraph on the big Australian bal
lot, most of such voters being Ger
mans and Russians who would have
voted against prohibition.
“In the last two sessions of the
lower house of the North Dakota
General Assembly I Introduced resub
mission hills only to have them beaten
by a two-thirds vote—the prohibition
vote coming chiefly from the eastern
part of the state in the Red River Val
ley, where alcohol is tho chief bever
Figures From Offioial Record.
Up to February 1, 1907, 1,048 fed
eral liquor licenses had been issued lu
North Dakota, compared with 1,329
in South pakota. There were 319
more federal liquor licenses issued tn
this state than in South Dakota.
When It is remembered that North
Dakota is a prohibition state, while
South Dakota is a high license state,
tho showing is apparently a very bad
one for North Dakota.
North Dakota, with a population of
437,070 souls, consumes annually about
$3,000,000 wortii of intoxicating liquors
in utter defiance of law.
Editor C. L. Mayes of the Rushville
Standard writes of the local situation
as follows:
Rushville has voted out the saloons
for the past two years and it has in
no way lessened the liquor truffle here.
There is ijot a train reaches this place
but what Jugs and barrels of whiskey
or beer is brought in on it and a class
of people who did not drink very much
when we had the open saloon now
keep it by them for fear they might
want a drink and not be able to got it,
and as a consequence, are drinking
much more than they did when we had
the open saloon. Hardly « train goes
through to Chadron but what people
go there from here and Gordon, also
May Springs, and spend the time until
the midnight train comes, having a
Jolly time, all because they nre de
prived of the privilege at home. There
Is a vast, sum of money spent in this
way which had just as well be kept st
home if the business men and other
citizens of our town would take a
broad view of the situation. It Is also
hurting the trade of the merchants as
many farmers now send to the cata
logue houses for goods, because they
have it in for the business men hero
who have deprived them of a chance
to drink a nodal glass of beer when
they come to town. We are certain that
Uushville has not been benefltted by
the change. At our school meeting in
July It was shown that wo are $538.35
In the hole, with many needed repairs
to the school building, whereas three
years ago we had $3,948.40 on hand at
the beginning of the school year. Our
valuation lias been raised, taxes in
creased and the mill levy for school
purpose! raised In two years from a
lb mill levy to n 35 mill levy. In spite
of the raise we nro $500 short and
there is talk of attempting to bond the
school district, to meet the necessary
expenses of running the school. The
dry policy has proved n failure here
for sure.
The merchants of Pllalr (Nebr.)
have organized an association which
may bo regarded as a local branch of
the Merchants' and Manufacturers’ as
sociation of Omaha. Tho objects of
tho lllalr organization are hlonlleal
with those of tho state association.
The Immediate cause of the action of
tho Blair merchants Is explained by
(ho following extract from a letter
written by one of the lending men of
that city:
"Blair, Juno 2C>, 1908. Gentlemen—
From personal Inquiry with the lead
ing merchants of this city I learn they
have had a very marked decrease of
business since the beginning of tho
dry year. They notice they are not
getting tho trade of their old rural
friends. A great many of our people
are Incensed, and aro showing resent
ment. There is tho usual underground
way to drink which Is the result, of a
dry town, and the express company
Is doing a thriving business In pack
ages which bear tho outward appear
ance of the desired liquid.”
A further Incentive for such organ*
zatlon was tho development of the
fact that the mail-order tralllc for
wet goods and merchandise shipped
Into Blair has increased enormously
since that town adopted the dry policy
last spring. On reliable authority It
Is stated that, the number of post
office money orders going to points
outside of Nebraska has increased
ilneo April first at a ratio of twenty
five to one, and the express money
orders Issued In Blair have increased
in about the same proportion. All this,
of course, Is apart from the largo num
ber of orders pent by tho farmers of
Washington county to catalogue
houses- the greater number of these
farmers declining to go to Blair to
Irade except when it is absolutely
necessary. The net result Is the out
put. of a large amount of money every
month which hitherto was spent,
among the merchants of Blair, who of
course must pay the same amount of
taxes and rental rates ns formerly. In
addition to (his state of things Is the
forfeiture of $0,000 per annum in li
cense money which must be made up
by additional taxation—the burden
falling upon tlie responsible property
owners and business men of Blair. This
comes at an Inopportune time to Blair,
which Is now in debt several thous
ands of dollars for current expenses,
there being registered municipal war
rants In the sum of $3,000, which, by
the way,Is the first batch of registered
warrants known to the municipal his
tory of that town, since all claims
against the city were previously paid
promptly without the necessity of Is
suing the city’s I. O. U’s in the shape
of warrants.
In view of these untoward facts, the
merchants of Blair found it necessary
to organize for concerted action in
support of a movement the object of
which is to secure relief from hurtful
conditions which have never before
obtained In that city.
Leading men of the Anti-Saloon
League in Massachusetts confidently
predict that the legislature will enact
a law taking all revenues from li
cense nut of the local school districts
and transferring such funds to the
state treasury.
A circular, issued by the league in
support of Its contention, quotes the
decision of the Massachusetts supreme
court, to-wit:
"That while the question of grant
ing licenses in any state or town is
determined by the vote of the inhabi
tants thereof, still, the license is grant
ed by the state. Under this decision,
thp license tax Is a state tax, and the
license money Is the state’s money,"
By the terms of this bill, license
money now derived from the liquor
traffic In wet towns would go Into the
common fund, and be apportioned on
the basis of population, alike to dry
and wet towns. This would mean that
the license money from wet towns
would go to helj) maintain the schools
of dry towns in Nebraska.
The injustice of this scheme is so
apparent that it need not bo dwelt up
on. The only basis for the conten
tion of the league in Massachusetts
is the fact that such license fees are
authorized by act of the legislature,
as they are in Nebraska, and in that
sense, the license fee may he regard
ed ps a state tax.
No doubt tbis movement of tho
Anti Saloon League Is popular In tho
rural districts where there are no
saloons, and where schools must bo
maintained. If such a law could bo
enacted In Nebraska, It would, of
course, compel the school districts In
cities and towns where liquor Is sold
under license to divide the money
among school districts In the country
where saloons do not exist. This
scheme would have a peculiar channi
to the rural voter, but it (len s not tnko
much discernment to see that It would
lilt the taxpayer of cities and towns
squarely between the eyes.
It would seem that the strength of
the prohibition movement In southern
States had begun to wane. The revolt
of the business men of Georgia against
the provisions of the prohibitory taw
which went Into effect In that state
last January, owing to the consequent
loss of bus* less, hail Its logical effect
In the ng ntnntton of Joe Brown for
governt/. It had Its effect upon tho
voters of Florida, also. In the latter
state, In June, the voters were forced
by the Anti-Saloon League (o chooso
between tho policy of local option and
thnt of prohibition. Returns show
tin' local-option party won by deerstvo
So It Is In Louisiana, where the Is
sues were Identical with these In Flor
ida, the legislature having voted down
the bill for slate-wide prohibition and
reaffirmed the faith of the people oC
Louisiana In the policy of the license,
local option system. No doubt tho’
decisive action of the Louisiana legia-’
lature was In a measure due to tha,
fiasco in Oklahoma, where, ns every
body knows, the people last year at
the ballot box adopted the policy of.
state-wide prohibition; but. like
Georgia, Oklahoma discovered that
the policy was Injurious to business
and failed to keep liquor from th<»
black mnn as it was Intended to do^
This Ik why Oklahoma discarded If
and adopted the dispensary system,
something like that, of South Carolina,
which hns been partially successful In*
keeping whiskey out of the hands ot
the blacks, while at the same time per
mitting the white men to get all the li
quor they want. The auditor of tho
South Carolina dispensary says In a
recent letter thnt tho dispensary sys
tem abolished the saloon at county,
cross roads, thereby depriving tho
black man of easy access to forty-rod
whiskey The auditor says further
thnt tlie dispensary does not not and
never has lessened the total amount
of liquor consumed In South Carolina.
Tho latest and most Important failure
of the prohibition policy In the South
was that of Tennessee. The result
whs most decisive. The Issue was
joined by the leading men of the Htnto
and made paramount in the recent
The upshot of the whole movement
throughout the South Is that the en
lightenment which comes from actual
experience Is educating the voters to
a knowledge of the fact that the only
practical m< ans for controlling the
liquor traffic Is through the enactment
of laws similar to the Klocumb license,
local option law of Nebraska, said to
bo the best law for the control of the
liquor traffic ever written.
The lust session of the Alabama leg
islature enacted a law providing for
state-wide prohibition, to take effect
In January, 1909. It Is too soon, of
course, to get facts showing whether
or not the new law has injured busi
ness or Impaired property values; but
it. is not too soon to gather facts from
Alabama showing that the taxpayer al
ready feels the effect of the new poli
cy. This Is shown by the following
extract from a letter written by the
secretary of the Mobile Chamber of
Commerce, under date of June 11th, to
the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’, as
sociation at Omaha. It reads as fol
“By act of legislature long years
ago, Mobile county was allowed to use
the liquor licenses in support of her
schools in exchange for government
building sites. The first net of our
legislature last year gave the right of
local option, hut at the extra call of
the legislature, state prohibition was
forced through. This will leave tho
school system of the county after tho
first of January, 1909, with a large de
ficit, and to make up this, a special
vote was taken two weeks ago to pay,
an additional tax of one mill, but tho
voting returns show that the extra tax
was lost; so thnt our school term must
either be much shortened, or the sal
aries of all teachers reduced below a
Mvlng wage. This effect on our
schools has caused more heartaches
than anything else so far.”
Note—If Nebraska ever adopts pro
hibition, the salaries of school teach
ers will be reduced all over the sfato
and the term of school will be short
ened for lack of funds, thus depriving
children of needed instruction.
Hundreds of Business Men Have Joined
the Merchants’ and Manufacturers’
Association Under the Following
"As business men and tux-payers wo
favor the movement to form an Associa
tion of Merchants and Manufacturers for
tho purpose cf adopting measures to
blind about n better enforcement of tho
Sloeumb liquor Tie.n,.-.e law throughout
the state—a law making It optional wlifj
the people of a town or city to say
whether or not liquor shall be sold. Wo
believe tho said law has been of great
benefit to tho state find that there can bo
not better means for regulating the sal*
if intoxicants. We stand for If* strict
enforc 'ment. Wo Join this association
with the understanding that no distil! r.
In .Ver, liquor dealoi r * loon keeper Is
eligible tu members! it object is
to protect property ini' ■ from the 111
effects of unwise legislation.’’