6
THE OMAHA SUNDAY BEE: AUGUST 15. 1909.
Prohibition the Obstacle to Real Temperance Reform
Mr. Wasson Is a cternymtn of the Epis
copal church. He think It a clergyman's
duty to speak openly against any system
which he believes to bp a source of tm
moraltjr and crime. Some folks nay that
It does not look right" to be against pro
hibition. Mr. Wasson believes that no con
sideration of mere expediency should deter
a clergyman from doing his duty. The
object of a prohibitory liquor law Is to
lessen liquor drinking. Its effect seems
Just tha opposite. Mr. Wasson has closely
studied tha matter for yenra and he ex
plains hera Just wherein a prohibitory law
falls In Its object. He does not overlook
tha evils of the saloon. He submits a plan
for tha regulation of the liquor traffic
which will make for temperance. This ar
ticle will enable ny man to decide whether
or rot a prohibitory liquor law will be for
the good of his own neighborhood. Editor
Pearson's Magazine.
URINO the decade Immediately
Dl preceding the civil war. a great
I "temperance wave" swept over
the country. Within a period
of five years, eight states, vis.,
the six New England states.
Michigan and Nebraska, adopted prohibi
tion. New York. Indiana and Wisconsin
also anacted prohibitory laws, which, how
ever, never went Into effect, having been
declared unconstitutional by the highest
courts In those states.
Now, again, after a lapse of fifty years,
the country la wltn sstng another "tem
perance wave," which has already risen
higher than Its predecessor. Nor is the
end yet in sight. While In some sections
of tha country, the "wave" has spent its
force and appears to be receding. In other
sections It Is Increasing In volume and
strength. There are, at present, elgh;
states In which statutory prohibition ob
tains-four in the south, three in the west
and one In New England. Under the local
option system, a number of other states
are being prohlhltlonlzed on the Install
ment plan. Not long ago It was estimated
that saloons were being closed at the rate
of thirty a day nearly 11,000 a year.
Promises Beyond Performance.
The prohibition leaders boast that, while
ten years ago there were only 6.000,000
people living In "dry" territory, there are
now 33.ono.on0. If prohibition and temper
ance be the same thing, we are certainly
making prodigious strides toward the mil
lennium. But sober minded people have
no faith In the professions and promises of
prohibitionists. Fifty years ago the lead
ers of the crufade thought theysaw the
dawn of the perfect day, when there would
not be a dram shop nor a drunkard In all
the land. They were- Confident that the
problem of Intemperance, which had per
plexed and baffled mankind for thousands
of years, was as good as solved. The great
dragon was about to be slain and his dead
carcass hurled Into the bottomless pit. But
It turned out to be all a dream. The
dragon was not slain; he was not even
seriously wounded. If he disappeared at
all, it was only to betake himself to the
cellar to await the passing of the storm
In the course of a few years, the "temper
ance wave" passed away, and the frenzy
and hysteria that caused It, and was caused
by it. died out.
The crusade not only did not solve the
liquor problem, but It complicated the prob
lem with new difficulties. The states that
adopted the prohibitory system soon found
themselves confronted with two evils In
stead of one, the old disease of intemper
ance and the new "remedy" of prohibition
And now, the successors of the men that
rallied round the standard of Neal Dow
are making precisely the same promises
and predictions that were made of old
They assure us that the present movement
means business. They prophecy that this
wave will not subside until It has swept
over every foot of American ,soil and has
done to the "rum" traffic what Jehovah'
did to the Egyptians in the Red sea.
At the KiprnK of Truth.
Prohibitionists have simplified the liquor
problem at the expense of truth, reason
and common experience. Instead of suiting
the remedy tothe disease, they have tried
to make the disease conform to their pre
determined remedy.
The liquor problem Is one of the most
complex of all social problems. It does
not stand out alone, simple, distinct and
Isolated, as prohibitionists would have us
believe. It Is at once a moral, an economic,
a physiological, a psychological and. In its
final analysis, a purely personal problem.
It contains many elements and Involves
many perplexing difficulties. When we look
below the surface and study this problem
In Its deeper aspects, we find that Its roots
are Inextricably Intertwined with those of
other social problems. So that genuine and
thorough temperance reform must be con
ducted along many different lines.
The liquor problem la not exclusively nor
chiefly a legislative problem, and hence It
cannot be solved by legislation alone. The
evil of Intemperance la not caused, though
It may be aggravated, by bad legislation,
and It cannot be removed, though It may
be lesaened, by good legislation. The main
lines of temperance reform, the most po
tent agencies for the building up of moral
character (and moral character Is the basts
f temperance In all things), lie wholly out
Side the scope of legislation. legislation
has, of course. Its part to play and a not
unimportant part In - any comprehensive
program of temperance reform; but when
1 legislation .encroaches on the domain of
' tha church and the home, when It ventures
to act as a substitute for purely social
and moral agenclea. It not only falls to ac
complish any good, but causes the greatest
harm. Speaking generally, the work that
legislation can do In the moral sphere is
of a negative character preventing and
suppressing the evil while work of a posi
tive character must be done through other
agencies. In undertaking temperance re
form work along any line, we must learn
to b patient, and to be modest In our
expectations. We must bear In mind that
temperance reform is very largely a mattet
of moral and social revolution.
Abolition or Regulation.
Liquor legislation must necessarily follow
one of two general policies. It may aim at
tha abolition of the liquor traffic, or at the
regulation of the traffic. These two policies
are extreme opposite at every point and
In every feature. The object of one Is to
kill, that of the other Is to cure. It Is on
this broad question of general policy that
tha people are divided, today.
No legislative system has ever been more
extensively nor fairly tested than that of
prohibition. During tho last sixty years it
has been tried on the state-wide scale in
many different sections of the country and
under the most divers social and political
conditions, the periods of trial ranging
from three years la Nebraska to fifty-three
years In Vermont. By Us record, by what
it has don and by what It has not done,
prohibition must be Judged. On every page
of that record, from beginning to end, are
written the words failure, tolly, fare. No
where and at no time. In all Its history,
has prohibition accomplished a single one
of tu avowed objects. Nowhar hag It
abolished the liquor traffic; nowhere has
It prevented the consumption of liquor nor
lessened the evil of Intemperance. Neither
a state-wide system nor under local
option has prohibition ever made the slight
est contribution toward the solution of the
liquor problem. The one solitary service
that It has rendered to society la that of
furnishing a warning example of the su
preme folly of attempting to legislate vir
tue Into men's lives.
There could ' be no stronger evi
dence of the failure of prohibi
tion than the fact that seven
of the eight states that adopted the sys
tem fifty years ago, have since abandoned
It and gone back to the policy of license
and regulation. The people of these state
adopted prohibition In good faith. They
honestly and earnestly desired to wipe
out Intemperance. They realised that In
temperance was directly or Indirectly the
cause of much ylme, poverty and disease;
that It was a financial burden on the state;
and that It was a hindrance to material
prosperity and to moral progress. They
thought It was a better policy to abolish
than to license and regulate a traffic that
seemed to them to be the .root and Bourse
of this evil. Now, to clou that prohibi
tion was even measurably successful In
these states, that It accomplished even a
little good. Is to Insult the Intelligence of
the people of New England. No sensible
person can believe that these seven states
would have deliberately repudiated a sys
tem that they had adopted In high hopes
and with high moral purpose, if they had
found that that system was making for
sobriety, prosperity and good citizenship.
Significance of Prohibition.
In view of the fact that It la always
easier to secure the enactment than the
repeal of laws of a reputed moral pur
pose, the repudiation of prohibition by
these states la all the more significant
The only conclusion consistent with rea
son and common sense Is that the people,
after years of bitter experience, found
that they had built on false hopes, and
that conditions were not only no better,
but far worse under prohibition than they
had been under the license system. It Is
also very significant that the states that
were swept off their feet by the prohibi
tion wave fifty years ago, .are among
those states that are being least affected
by the present agitation. And even Maine,
which Is the only one of these states that
has retained prohibition all thes years.
Is actually showing unmistakable signs of
genuine repentance. ' It Is conceded on all
sides that a decisive verdict against pro
hibition would have been rendered at the
last state election in Maine, when resub
mission was a prominent Issue, if it had not
been for the fact that It was a presiden
tial year. Prohibition Is generally least
popular where It Is best known.
If prohibiten really prohibited, the fact
ought to be. reflected In the figures
of the United States revenue department.
But, according to the government reports,
the use of alcoholic liquors act
ually Increases with the spread of
prohibition. In 1893, the year the anti
Saloon league was organized, the per
capita consumption of malt and spirituous
liquors in the whole country was 16.8 and
1.48 gallons respectively. In 1899, when only
,000,000 people wer living under prohibitory
laws, the figures were 15.8 and Lit In
190;, when approximately 35,000.000 people
were living In "dry" territory, the figures
had risen to the high-water mark, 22.d and
IBS, Th report of 1908 shows a decrease
of about 10 per cent in spirituous liquors
as compared with 1907, while the consumn-
tlon of malt liquors was about the same
ror both years. Thus we are confronted
with the remarkable faot that. In 1903,
when the prohibition wave had reached
enormous proportions and was wiping out
saioons at tne rate of 11,000 a year, the
American people consumed more liquor
per capita than they did In any previous
year since LS93. the year 1907 alone excepted.
Condition In Mslas,
Now let us turn for a moment to our old
mend, the state of Maine. That prohibi
tion has been a failure and a farce in that
state is a matter of common knowledge.
No one who Is not a blind partisan will
deny this. Four years ago, Governor Cobb,
a sincere prohibitionist and an honest, out
spoken man, declared. In his Inaugural ad
dress, that the state ought to be ashamed
or ltseir to have a prohibitory law on Its
books and to make that law a laughing
stock or the nation. And he insisted that,
as a matter of common honesty, the law
ought to be either enforced or repealed.
Recorder Whelden of Portland recently
made this statement: "There are at least
400 men and women who are brought be
fore this court time and again for Intoxica
tion." Think of It. 400 habltuals in a city
from which the liquor traffic Is supposed
to have been banished sixty years ago.
During four years, up to January 1, 1907,
In Portland, liquors were seised on seventy
five streets and allevs and at 445 differ
ent places; and 932 different persons were
brought into court for violation of the
liquor law.
The report of the committee of fifty,
based on a most thorough and extensive
Investigation of .conditions In Maine, tells
the whole story of the miserable failure of
prohibition throughout th whole state.
Every one that has traveled through Maine
knows that there Is not a , town In the
state where even a stranger, If he takes
the trouble to make Inquiry, cannot get all
the liquor he wishes, such as It Is. And In
many places the stranger Is waited on by
some considerate person who asks him
whether he would not like "something"
The statistics relating to arrests for
drunkenness and deaths from slcohollsm
in Maine all tell the same tale. They spell
the word failure.
Dream In Georgia.
In response to the loud clamorlnga of the
Anti-Saloon league, tho legislature of
Georgia enacted a prohibitory law a
couple of years ago. The act went Into
effect January 1. 190. For a short time,
the new law seemed to hav a good effect.
Judging from surface indications. It
looked as If prohibition might at last break
Its long record of failure and actually stop
the sale of liquor. But. again, It was all a
dream, and a very short dream, too. The
drinkers adjusted themselves to the "dry"
system, and were soon hobnobbing as
openly and boldly as ever with the old
demon. Conditions kept going from bad
to worse, and befor the law had been on
the statute books a year, It was clearly
evident to everybody that had even half
an eye that prohibition in Georgia had
broken down.
Here la th testimony of two of th
prohibition leaders themselves. Rev. Dr,
Holdej-by of Atlanta, an ardent prohibi
tionist, said last winter: 'The legislature
la afraid to stand by the very law which
It enacted twelve month ago. Atlanta has
become a laughing stock and a stench In
the nostrils of the Almighty." This con
fceslon must hav been very humiliating
to th good parson, as he had bean telling
his people light along that be knew It to
be a fact that tha Almighty waa on th
aid of prohibition. Assistant Buperln
tendent Richards of the Antl-8aloon
league, utters this wail: "Beer Is sold
her right and left, smd I know It. You
can get whlaky, too; for what dos It mean
when twnty-avu carloads of bear and
whisky sre shipped here?" Well. Brother
Richards, It means,. In the first place, that
there are a good many thirsty people In
Atlanta, and In the second place, that
your prohibition law Is a humbug. Other
leading prohibitionists speak In the same
strain as the two Just quoted. Conditions
In Atlanta are a sample of those that ob
tain all over the state.
I nder I. urn I Option. ,
Just a word about prohibition under the
local option system. The writer is very
familiar with the working of prohibition
In a number of the towns of the east end
on Long Island, and from his own observa
tion during the last seven years he can
testify to the fact that In every one of
these "dry" towns, prohibition has been
a disgusting farce every time It has
been tried. In the writer's own
town the record of prohibition may be
summed up In the admission of the local
anti-saloon leader, that "anybody can get
all the liquor he wants In this town under
either license or no-llcense." That no-ll-nense
has failed to accomplish any good on
Long Island, may be inferred from the fact
that at the elections, last spring, every
town on the Island was carried for license
by a decisive majority. The Anti-Saloon
league made the fight of its life, but it
was of no use. The people knew all about
the "blessings" of prohibition, and they
concluded that they had had enough. The
prohibitionists lost every town they then
held. Including conservative old East
Hampton, which gave a majority for li
cense for the first time In fifty years.
Many and various are the reasons why
prohibition In this country has proved a
failure. The following considerations will
reveal a few of the more general reasons.
Interference with Individual Rights.
Prohibition Is an attempt to deprive men
of what they believe to be an Inherent
right. The question of individual rights Is
tha underlying Issue In this whole con
troversy. Majority rule is, of course, a
sound political principle, but It Is obvious
that the application of this principle must
be confined within reasonable limits. If
a majority has a right to say to a min
ority: You shall not drink beer, another
maporlty has the right to say to another
minority: Tou shall riot drink tea. Now, If
the people In any state or town should
take it into their heads to enact a law pro
hibiting the use of tea, what a fearful
howl would go up from the camp of the
Women's Christian Temperance union and
what an unenviable Job the officers would
have In attempting to enforce such a law!
"What, deprive us of our right to serve tea
at our mothers' meetings and parlor so
ciables! Why, It's an outrage!" "Oh, but,
good ladles we, the majority, made up as
you know of the better element, have thor
oughly investigated this matter, and we
have found that tea is very Injurious. In
fact. It's a poison. Look at the thousands
of women that have gone down to tea-topers'
graves! Look at the army of inno
cent little children - that have been left
motherless," etc., etc. As a matter of
fact, many experienced physicians believe
that tea and coffee cause quite as much
trouble In the world as alcohol. The "tern
iperancer" people will retort: '"Yes; but
there is a wide difference between beer
and tea." Of course there Is, and that is
Just why so many people prefer the beer.
But there Is no difference between
the right to drink the one and right to
drink the other. Everywhere and always,
outside of Islam, while drunkenness has
been condemned, the moderate use of alco
holic beverages has been a common custom
and has been regarded as the inherent rlsln
of the Individual.
Sanctioned by the Church.
The use of alcoholic liquors Is 'and hah
always been. considered not only leglllniato
as a beverage, but It Is consecrated and
hallowed In the most solemn and weighty
rite of the Christian church. Now you
cannot by a mere Jaw, eradicate a senti
ment and destroy an Institution that haj
stood for ages, and that Is so deeply rooted
In our whole social life. Prohibition con
demns the confidence, the Judgment and the
social habits of countless generations of
the most highly civilized, progressive and
moral peoples. Moreover, prohibition passe
condemnation on a great branch of In
duatry that has been recognized through
out all ages as legitimate, an Industry in
which some of the most venerable and
honored religious orders of the Christian
church have been and ate today engaged,
.rromoiuon necessarily rails because it
makes no discrimination between use and
abuse. It arbitrarily makes a legal crime
of an act which is neither wrong in itself
nor contrary to the rights and Interests of
society. Because two or three men use
liquor to excess, prohibition would compel
a hundred temperate men to follow the
rule of total abstinence. One man Is laino
and therefor all his neighbors must use
crutches.
Social Solence Vlevr.
Again, prohibition has failed because It
is wholly negative and destructive. You
cannot remove an effect until you remove
the cause. You cannot abolish th liquor
traffic until you abolish the source of tue
traffic It is not the liquor traffic that
creates the demand for liquor; 11 Is the
demand for liquor that creates the traffic.
And Juat so long as the demand continues,
Just so long will tha supply of liquor be
forthcoming In on way or another. The
attempt to abolish the liquor traffic by
prohibitory law Is as futile as would be
the attempt to dry up a river by building
a dam. Prohibitionists seem to imagine that
they are dealing only with the compar
atively few liquor dealers; whereas they
are dealing with the vast multitude of men
that are determined to use liquor. They tell
us that the saloon is a curse. Well, be that
as It may, the practical question Is, what
blessing does prohibition furnish as
substitute? Absolutely none, unless It
be the Women's Christian Temperance
union Mothers' meeting and the
weekly prayer meeting. These Institutions,
excellent as they are in their place, are
hardly adapted to satisfy the social needs
of the masses. Students of social science,
men who have spent years in observing and
studying the saloon and th saloon con
stltuency, whatever views they may hold
as to the character of this Institution as it
now exists, agree unanimously on tho foi
lowing three propositions:
1. That the saloon fills a legitimate social
need.
1 That It Is practically the only institu
tion that does fill this need.
i. That It is worse than useless to at'
tempt to abolish th saloon until some
suitable Institution be established as a sub
stitute.
( Doesn't Kradlesut Appetite.
The lives of the great majority are dull
and monotonous. The proportion of pleas
ure and leisure la meager and insufficient
This Is as true of rural aa of urban life,
but It Is too largely true of th masses
everywhere. And whatever will lighten and
brighten and cheer their lives without too
great a sacrifice will not be readily surren
dered in th Interest of a questionable
moral reform. If men cannot gat this
pleasure openly they will gat It surrepti
tiously, and even if It could b taken from
them by fore they would resort to substi
tute which. In all likelihood, would b far
I mor Injurious. Th saloon xists because
there la a demand for It. A prohibitory law
! otrtaluly doe sot ramov this demand. It
does not eradicate the social Instinct and
the desli to drink that lie back of the de
mand. In short. It does not destroy a sin
gle one of the elements that constitute the
life and power of the saloon. It does not
Introduce Into the, community a single ele
ment that acts as an antidote for the sa
loon. The whole root of this Institution re
mains In the community Intact, undisturbed
and vigorous. Under these circumstances
it Is Inevitable that the saloon, In one form
or another, will continue to serve Its cus
tomers. Depends on Public Sentiment.
Law enforcement Is, In the long run, de
pendent on public sentiment. Moreover,
public sentiment. In order to make itself
felt, must be active, alert and persistent.
A mere vague wish that the law be enforced
Is not enough. The wish must be followed
up by well organised effort When you
find a community In which the government
Is ring-ridden and corrupt, it does not
mean that the public sentiment Is In favor
of such conditions. It means that public
sentiment Is Impotent because it Is either
Inactive or unorganized. Thus It occurs
that small minorities can defy, and are to
day defying, the will of large majorities.
Just how much of this active and deter
mined public sentiment is required to In
sure strict law enforcement depends largely
on the character of the law. A stringent,
harsh, sumptuary law, like prohibition,
could not be enforced unless it had on Its
side an almost unanimous public sentiment,
vigilant and well organized. Such a law
has all the odds against It. It has an up
hill Job from the outset. Public officials
are, as a rule, far more Inclined to heed
and yield to the voice of protest against
the enforcement of a law of this kind than
they are to make an extraordinary effort
to enforce the law In obedlenc to the de
mand of the other side. Under statewide
prohibition there ar many communities
where the majority sentiment Is strongly
opposed to enforcement, and even prohibi
tionists admit that. In such communities,
the law becomes a mere farce.
Rnle of Minority,
But even under the local option system,
which Is stipposed to Insure local majority
rule, prohibition, In a great many Instances,
does not actually represent a majority of
the electorate. Arid the reason Is that at a
local option election, a considerable propor
tion of the voters do not mark the excise
ballot at all. In the writer's own town the
vote on the license question during the last
fifteen years has always fallen from 12 to
20 per cent short of the total vote cast on
other questions and for candidates for
offices. During the period In question the
town has been cnrrled for no license a num
ber of times, and In every Instance by a
minority of the total vote polled. More
over, the public sentiment In favor of pro
hibition Is not only not strong enough In
quantity to enforce the law, but even what
there Is of It Is not of the right quality.
The great majority of those that vote for
prohibition are full of zeal and enthusiasm
up t-o the time of the election; but after
election their enthusiasm dies out and they
leave It to others to attend to the matter
of law enforcement. They think that In
merely casting their ballots for prohibition
they have done their full duty and saved
the country. The writer has watched the
prohibitionists In his town for seven years
and he can testify that not 2 per cent of
the men) that vote for no license ever lift
a finger or contribute one cent to have the
law enforced under either system.
The prohibition public sentiment Is of that
cheap, shallow, emotional variety that ex
hausts Itself In all manner of hysterical per
formances during the campaign. Over
against the Inherltant weakness of this
prohibition sentiment Is the public senti
ment opposed to the enactment and to the
enforcement of the prohibitory law. This
sentiment Is of a very different kind from
the other. There Is nothing frenzied nor
hysterical about it. But it Is determined,
active and persistent. It knows what It
wishes and, what Is more to the point. It
knows how to get what It wishes. It doesn't
exhaust Itself before election nor grows In
different after election. Indeed, as soon as
the town goes "dry," this antl-prohibltlon
Bentlment begins to arouse Itself and .warm
up.
Why Prohibition Doesn't Prohibit.
A man in a "dry" town wishes a drink
and fie knows where he can get It. That
man Is far more Interested in-getting his
drink than his prohibition neighbor Is In
preventing him from getting It. And when
you multiply this one drinker by a number
representing half or more of the male In
habitants of the community, you have an
Idea of the relative strength, of the two
kinds of public sentiment, and, If you have
any power of Imagination, you know why
prohibition does not prohibit. There Is
said to be a good deal of the mule about
human nature, and a prohibitory law Is
beautifully adapted to bring out the mule
quality. People resent the Idea of being
held up by a lot of hysterical women and
meddlesome men who conceive It to be
their right and duty to regulate the per
sonal habits of their neighbors.
1'iolilbition has not only failed to ac
complish lis avowed object, but it has been
the greatest obstacle to true temperance
reform In thla country during the last
fifty years. Other nations are far ahead of
us In the way in which they handle the
drink question, and one reason is that they
have not been so much disturbed by "tem
perance waves." Prohibition attempts to do
that which la impossible and prevents the
doing of that which Is possible. If the
liquor problem, In Its legislative aspects,
is ever going to be solved, the solution must
be found along the line of regulation, and
th sooner we set our feet on the right
path the sooner we shall reach the desired
end.
Rearulatloa the Remedy.
Nothing Is more certain than that every
state and local community In which pro
hibition now obtains will ultimately have to
return to the policy of regulation, and
Just so long as the prohibitory law re
mains on the statute books. Just so
long will the day of reformation be
deferred. Prohibition is like the quack
doctor who cannot cure the patient
himself and will not allow anybody else to
take the case. The present hysterical cru
sade is Itself an obstacle to reform even
In places where the license law obtains.
It is a drain on the moral energy of the
community. It creates contention, confu
sion and bitter Btrlfe. It attracts and leads
astray many well-intentioned, but unthink
ing people, whose Interest In moral reform
and whose zeal and enthusiasm would, If
wisely directed, be of great value to the
community. Theae people become In
fatuated with a blind faith in the power
of prohibition to regenerate society, and
they will listen to nothing else. If you
suggest to them some proposition of
reasonable reform, they fly off Into a rage
and denounce you as a traitor to the
country and an enemy to religion.
Rale or Rain Their Motto.
Prohibitionists not only refuse to support,
but actively and bitterly fight against,
very plan of excise reform that doe not
go to their extreme. It must b abolition
or nothing; their motto is rule or ruin.
In their bltnd seal they actually rejoice In
iniquity. Th disreputable saloon is far
more to their liking than th decent
saloon, for tin mor disreputable th
saloon th mor ammunition for th cam
paign. It ail saloons wer mad decent
and orderly, the bottom would soon drop1
out of the prohibition movement. Tell a
prohibitionist that such and such a saloon
Is certainly a respectable place, and you
arouse his fiercest anger. He mould rather
hear that a murder has been committed In
one of the "hell holes." In his estimation
the respectable saloon Is the very worst
kind, as It deceives and beguile the un
wary youth to his destruction.
The real character of the prohibition
movement is thus seen in the way it reacts
on the prohibitionists themselves. They
throw truth and reason and experience to
the winds, and often resort to the most
contemptible and disgusting methods to
gain their end. Some time ago, a traveling
salesman who lives In a town In the mid
dle west, was returning home from a trip.
On arriving at his station, he noticed that
the streets were filled with people. Mak
ing his way through the crowd, he dis
covered that a no-license parade was In
progress. It was a long procession, made
up of women and children. They carried
banners and flags, and sang "temperance"
songs. Every child wore a badge on
which were th words, "Vote for us;
we cannot." At the end of the
procession were several files of child
ren dressed In rags and tatters. One
of these, a boy, carried a huge banner.
Printed on th banner. In large letters, were
these words. "My father is a drunkard."
Our friend the salesman looked at the ban
ner and then happened to glance at the boy.
Suddenly an expiesslon of amazement carno
over his face, and, breaking through the
crowd, he ran up to the ragged banner
bearer and Krasplng him by the arm ex
claimed: "My God, what ar you doing
here, my boy?" It was this gentleman's
own son that had been dressed up In these
rags by tho good "temperance" women and
sent out to carry this banner of shame and
humiliation through the streets. This ex
hibition Is a sample of the methods em
ployed by prohibitionists to gain converts
to their cause.
Brutal and Valvar Deception.
If thes children really had drunken
fathers. It was unspeakably brutal and
cruel to make such a spectacle of them be
fore the public. If their fathers were not
drunkards, the whole thing was a cheap,
theatrical performance deliberately In
tended to create a false Impression on the
publlo mind. And all this fraud and vul
garity in the name of temperance and re
ligion! Here Is another example of the Intem
perate "temperance" of prohibitionists: A
professor in one of our universities ac
cepted an invitation to speak at a "tem
perance" rally In a church. In tho course
of his remarks he referred to the miracle
at Cana, and expressed himself thus: "I
have given this matter profound thought,
and I wish to say to you tnat I have
reached the conclusion that when Christ
turned that water Into wine he did what
was wrong." Blind passion, wild fanati
cism and bitter Intolerance are the chief
characteristics of the whole prohibition
movement. It must be apparent to every
sane and reasonable mind that the sooner
this miscalled "temperance" crusade Is
burled out of sight and forgotten the sooner
the way will be cleared for genuine tem
perance reform.
Fails of Its Purpose.
Finally, prohibition must be condemned,
not only because It has failed to accomplish
any good, not only because It blocks the
way to real reform, but because it Is Itself
the source of many social and political
evils. Those evils are briefly summarized
as follows:
L Prohibitory legislation has never suc
ceeded in abolishing the liquor traffic, but
It has succeeded in degrading and demoral
izing the traffic by driving It into secret
places. The liquor laws in most of the
states prohibit the use of shades In saloon
windows and screens In front of the bar.
This wise provision Is based on the com
mon experience that the liquor business Is
of such a nature that It is far more likely
to do harm when It Is carried on under
i over than when it Is open and aboveboard.
Now prohibition forces the liquor traffic to
secrtte Itself, not merely behind a screen,
but behind a barricaded door. The door Is
quickly opened for those that know the
password, but shut against the officers of
the law. The only practical question that
confronts us is whether we shall permit the
liquor traffic to be carried on openly under
the supervision and control of the law, or
whether we shall drive it Into places where
the arm of the law cannot reach It. Li
cense means the open barroom, prohibition
means the "speak easy." Which of the
two kinds Is the more likely to harbor evils
and encourage Intemperance?
2. If there is any one business more than
another that, in the Interest of the public,
ought to be In the hands of men with con
science and moral principle. It is the liquor
business. A proper kind of license law can
do considerable toward Improving the per
sonnel of the trade. Prohibition, on the
other hand, discourages decent, honorable
men from engaging In the business, and
thus throws it into the hands of the most
unscrupulous and Irresponsible men In the
community. Th'! only cjual ficauon require!
Is the ability to beat tho law without get
ting caught. A couple of years asa. in a
certain town on Lung Island, one of tha
best hotels had to close lis doors shortly
after the "dry" law went Into effect. The
proprietor of this hotel was one of the most
honored men in the community. Prohibi
tion did succeed in closing this man's bar
and driving him out of the hotel business
as well, and It closed other decent places.
But what was the result? Why, within two
years between fifty and sixty "kitchen sa
loons" wer established in this same town.
It Is a well known fact that most of the
men that run these "speak easles" In a
"dry" town are thoroughly satisfied with
prohibition. A license law would put them
out of business. Again, the only question
is : Shall we encourage and protect the de
cent liquor dealer, or shall we encourage
the other kind? One kind or the other we
art) absolutely sure to have.
Bad Kffect on Drinker.
3. Prohibition has a bad effect also on
the drinker. It tends to discourage
the use of the lighter alcoholic bev
erages and to encourage the exces
sive use of the stronger liquors. This
tendency is especially pronounced wherever
the attempt is made to enforce the law
rigorously. Deterioration In the quality of
liquor Is another one of the "blessings"
Introduced by prohibition. The men who
run the 'speak easies" often make their
own "whisky," and you can imagine the
nature of the "blend." A few years ago,
when the town in which the writer lives
was "dry," a confirmed inebriate who
lived In adjoining "wet" town got In th
habit of visiting this "dry" town about
once a fortnight. He was always sober
when he arrived and drunk when he left.
He waa once asked why he came from a
"wet" town to a "dry" town to get liquor,
and his answer was: "Because I can get
a quicker and cheaper Jag on In Riverhead
than I can In ." This Is the way
prohibition reforms the drunkard. It la
often claimed that while prohlbtlon does
not altogether prohibit, it does succeed In
reducing the consumption of liquor. This
claim Is not based on fact. But even if it
be tru that lass liquor Is drunk In a given
community under prohibition than under
th lloens system, the all-important ques
tion, from the point of view of temperance
reform is, what class af people ar thru
Rev.
in
affected? Who are the men thst either
cannot get anything to drink or cannot get
as much as they would tinder license?
Now. everybody who Is not living In a
lsnd of dreams, knows perfectly well that
the very men In every community who
most need reforming are the ones that ar
least Inconvenienced by th prohibitory
law. The are the first ones to learn the
location of every "speak easy" In th
place. But, If prohibition cannot reform
this clsss, may It not at least keep tempta
tion out of the way of the young? Now,
the truth Is that all thla talk about "pro
tecting our boys" Is sheer twaddle. The
protection Is a myth. Prohibition really
creates the most dangerous kind of tempta
tionthat which is hidden, but known.
Every young man that Is at all liable to be
led astray under the license system, Is
far more liable to go astray tinder a sys
tem that encourages secret drinking. Who
wouldn't rather have his son go Into an
open saloon and get a glass of beer than
to have him Join his companions In some
back-room resort? If there Is any class
of young men In the community that need
the protection of the law, they are cer
tainly not the ones that frequent the
Woman's Christian Temperance union
prayer meeting when the town la "dry."
While the good women are pray
ing and thanking the Lord for
the great blessing of prohibition,
these young fellows are probably
"protecting" themselves In the "club"
room' at the far end of some alley.
Foster Law Breaking;.
4. Prohibition creates widespread and
habitual law-breaking. Consider the num
ber of crimes that are committed every
hour of the day In a "dry" state. And con
sider the bad moral effect of this habit
of law-breaking on the civic life. It
creates the spirit of lawlessness. It tends
to weaken and break down that respect
for the principle of law and order which
Is so essential to good citizenship. The
following story shows how even good men
are unconsciously affected by this bane
ful influence: Some years ago a clergy
man went to a certain summer resort In
New Hampshire to spend his vacation. On
arriving In the town, he went to th lead
ing hotel. While waiting In the office for
the supper bell, he happened to open a
door, and found. In the next room, a well-
appointed bar. The proprietor was In this
room, and the clergyman, pointing to the
bar, said, "Why. Mr. , how Is this?"
"How's whst?" answered the proprietor.
"Why, you have a bar here, and you are
evidently open for business." The hotel
man looked puzzled and said: "Of course,
I have a bar. Couldn't you get what you
wanted?" "Oh, I didn't wish anything,"
answer the minister, "but I wondered how
you could run an open bar In a prohibi
tion town." The genial host felt relieved
when he found that his guest wns not
complaining about the service. "Well,
well," he said, "I didn't understand what
you meant. Why, that's easy. I'll tell
you howL we work It up here. You see, I
was high sheriff of this county last term,
and, while I dislike to blow my own horn,
I want to tell you that I did what very few
men In this county would have done.
Every three months I raided my own bar
and had myself fined." As he finished
this sentence, there was a look of genuine
pride in the ex-sheriff's face. He seemed
to be blissfully unconscious that there was
anything wrong about violating the law.
This story was told to the writer by the
Rev. Dr. E. A- Wasson of Nowark. N. J.,
who was himself the clergyman that had
this conversation with the hotel man. ?
Hypocrisy the Guild.
Here Is another story which shows the
effect of prohibition aa a breeder of rank
hypocrisy. About four years ago, shortly
after a certain town on Long Island went
"dry," a hotel keeper In this town re
ceived a letter from a wholesale whisky
concern In Kentucky, reading some
thing like this: "Will you kindly send
us the names of any persons In your
town who, you think, might be likely to
purchase wet goods. We have a very fine
brand of whisky (naming the brand) that
we should like to Introduce In your town.
We shall be glad to extend to you the
usual courtesy of 10 per cent commission
on all sales that we may make through the
list you send us." Well, the hotel man
thought he would have a little fun, and
so he made a list of about thirty-five of
the most rabid prohibitionists In the place,
and Bent the list to the whisky firm. He
thought It would be a fine Joke on the
prohibitionists to have them deluged with
whisky circulars. And It turned out to be'
a better joke than he thought. For, at
the end of three months, he received a let
ter from the whisky people thanking him
for what he had done, and Inclosing a
check for $27 commission. This story
throws light on the curious circumstance
already referred to, that, as the prohibi
tion movement spreads, the consumption of
liquor Increases.
Summed Up by Eliot.
Ex-President Eliot of Harvard sums up
the whole case against prohibition In Its
effects on the social and political life. He
says: "The efforts to enforce It (prohibi
tion) during forty years past have had
some unlooked-for effects on public respect
for courts, judicial procedure, oaths and
law, legislatures and public servants. The
publlo have seen law defied, a whole gen
eration of habitual law breakers, schooled
In evasion and shamelessnees, courts Inef
fective through fluctuations of policy, de
lays, perjuries, negligences and other mis
carriages of Justice, officers of the law
double faced and mercenary, legislators
timid and Insincere." Such is the character
and the record of prohibition.
Th writer of the present article does not
wish to minimize the evils and abuses that
have been allowed to grow up and intrench
themselves In the liquor traffic. There Is
no doubt that aome liquor dealers have
condoned and encouraged conditions re
pugnant to moral sense and destructive of
decency and good order. They hav en
couraged other vices, such as gambling and
the social evil. They have catered and
pandered to the worst passions and Im
pulses In human nature. And they have
done all this In a cold-blooded desire to
increase the volume of their business. But
the number of such dealers is compara
tively small. At the same time, one such
man in the business is one too many.
Liquor laws should be so framed that It
would be extremely difficult, if not Impos
sible, for men of this stamp to get into the
liquor business, and tho law should also
provide a simple and easy way to drive
out those that have gotten In.
The limits of this article preclude a
lengthy discussion of the question of a
legislative remedy for the evils connected
with the liquor traffic. Hut It will not be
amiss to suggest a plan of regulation which,
In the Judgment of the w,lter, would be
a step In the right direction.
Cold for Action.
In formulating liquor legislation we
should be guided by two fundamental prin
ciples. The first is practicability. The
question to be determined at the outaet is,
what kind of excise law, under given con
ditions, with men a they ar in their Indi
vidual and social life, and with political
standards as they are, will Ifot th best
Wiliiam A. Wasson
Pearsons for August
I results. Th trouble with much of our lcr
lslation Is that It has ignored limitation
Imposed by actual conditions. Legislation
Is not the expression of Ideals nor of moral
yearnings. The law should represent the
nearest approach to the Ideal that present
conditions will admit of. Another equally
Important consideration, following on this
Is that the same legislation Is not adapted
for all communities. Hence, liquor legis
lation snouiu proviae ior a very large
and wrong kind of home rule. The so
called local option system that now ob
tains In many of the states, is the wrong
kind. It Is unsound In principle and dc
moralizing In its effects. It is at variance
with the general policy of regulation. It
Is part of the policy and program of pro
hibition. It Is an Instrument placed In the
hands of prohibitionists to enablo them to
gain their end little by little. Now, all the
features and provisions of a state liquor
law should be mutually consistent and
harmonious. All parts of the law should
have the same general Intent and conform
with the same general policy. But, under
the present local option system, the statu
Is following two opposite policies at tha
same time. This kind of local option gives
the local community too much power and
too little power. The people have no power
to say who shall receive licenses and what
moral and other qualifications shall be re
quired. They have no power to determine
the question of prohibited days and hours;
no power to determine the amount of tho
license fee, nor to set a limit on th num
ber of licenses to be Issued. There is
no option on any of these matters of
practical administration that .properly
come wtlhln the scope of local self-government.
The community has option on
only one question whether the liquor
traffic shall be legalized or prohibited.
This local option scheme reverses the true
order of political administration. It with
holds from the local community thoce
minor but Important powers that the peo
ple In the local community are In the
best position to exercise wisely, while it
confers upon the local community that
supreme power of life or death over the
liquor traffic which ought to be reserved
In the hands of the state. Under this sys
tem the liquor dealers and the public aio
In a constant state of uncertainty as to the
fundamental question of regulation or
abolition. At every local option election
there Is the possibility of a complete revo
lution of policy. Today the liquor business
Is Just as legitimate as any other business;
tomorrow It may be under the ban of tho
law. The question Is never settled. Neither
side ever wins a permanent victory. The
state alone should settle this all-Important
question of the legality of the liquor traf
fic. A question like this, Involving the
fundamental rights of property and of
personal liberty, should not be left to tha
decision of a majority vote at a local elec
tion. On the other hand, the state, after
establishing the legality of the liquor
business everywhere within Its borders,
should grant to the local community the
fullest freedom and power In the matter of
regulation.
Outline of Rra-nlatton.
Starting with this general principle of
state rule In matters of general policy
and home rule In matters of local admin
istration, the following Is a rough outline
of the plan of regulation that the writer
has In mind as a substitute for tho present
local option system.
That the people in each local community
(the township is probably the best unit)
be empowered to elect their own Board of
Excise commissioners, twelve in number,
to serve for a term of say two years. This
board should have power to determine the
amount of the license fee (within maxi
mum and minimum limit fixed by the
state); to determine how many licensed
should be Issued t within maximum and
minimum limits fixed by the state); to
determine the question of prohibited days
and hours, and all other questions of a
purely local nature. The board should
have sole power to grant and revoke
licenses, subject to certain rules of pro
cedure. The applicant should be required
to present to the board a certificate of good
moral character, signed by twelve reputable
persons, who should be property owners
and residents of the community.
The board should be required to hold
a public hearing on all applications fur
license, and an opportunity be given to
remonstrants, should there be any, to pre
sent their objections. After this hearing,
the board should have full discretionary
power by a majority vote to grant or re
fuse any application. And there should be
no appeal from their decision. This power
to grant licenses Is the most Important of
all. It is the key to the whole situation.
And this key should be placed In the hands
of the people most nearly affected. If we
can prevent unfit persons from getting Into
the liquor business, we have, at the very
outset, solved nine-tenths of the problem
of regulation. The trouble now Is that al
most anybody that has the price, whether
he Is morally fit or not, can get a license
and start up a saloon. The law may re
quire that the licensee be a person of good
moral character, but that requirement
amounts to simply nothing at all unless
some person or persons be empowered to
determine in each case the question of
moral fitness. And who Is better qualfted
to exercise this power than twelve men
elected by and responsible ,to the people of
the community? The board should also
possess the sole power to revoke licenses.
On the complaint of any citizen that a
certain liquor dealer was violating the law
or that he was maintaining a nulsan.ee of
any kind, it would be the duty of the board
to hold a public trial of the matter, sum
mon and sweur witnesses, and give the
accused person an opportunity to defend
himself. After hearing sll the evidence,
the board should have power by a two
thirds vote to dismiss the case or suspend
or revoke the license. And there should be
no appeal from their decision.
Possible Objection.
Of course It will be objected that this
plan places too much power In the hands
of the excise boaid. Well. If you glv men
in this position so little power that they
could not possibly do any harm, you make
rt Impossible for them t) do any good.
There is not the remotest likelihood that
such a board, elected by the people, could
be unduly influenced to grant a license to
a man of known unfitness or to drlv a
decent, law-abiding liquor dealer out of
business. There would certainly be far less
likelihood of abuse of power under such
a system than there Is now under tha
local-option system. For, under the latter
system, a bare majority of the voters car. 1
i at one stroke, revoke every license In th ,
town without trial or hearing or reason.
The most reputable liquor dealer Is no
safer than the dive keeper. The proposed
plan Is home rule of the right kind. It gives
the people nil the power they nwed to reg
ulate, but no power to destroy and con
fiscate. Under this system, the liquor busi
ness would be placed on a permanent foot
ing. Every dealer would be absolutely sure
that his license was secure as long as
he obeyed the law and conducted his busi
ness decently. Th only persons that would
be put out of business would bo tn dis
reputable liquor dealer and ta prohibition,
agitator. , f
