Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, November 02, 1916, Page 11, Image 11

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

:aieWide ProhibitioE Defeate
Perfectly Proper to Drink Liquor, Provided it is Not Purchased in the State
bf Nebraska, is the Decision of the Anti-Saloon League
It is reasonable to suppose that if the advocates for the
, Anti-Saloon League had a real argument they would use it.
So far their interpretation of the proposed prohibitory
amendment is utterly foolish. They have jumped from one
phase of the amendment like a drowning man grasping for a
Their facts are imaginary, their figures a delusion, and
their interpretation of the law, is a pitiful apology for a dismal
failure wherever tried. ' '
They realize that the voters of the state are not going to
adopt an amendment that is so full of loop-holes as the one
that is proposed. They realize that their amendment is not ,
practical and that it will be defeated, so they are endeavoring
tobemuddle the voters of this city and state by prejudiced
opinions which come from individuals when looked up can
not be located. ,' (
, . They say this amendment will not prohibit the shipping in
Now, if this proposed prohibitory amendment will not
, prohibit the shipping in or the use of liquor, it brands the pro
hibitionists as Near Politicians, and by that they admit they are
advocating something mat is not practical.1
" ' ' ' . ' "' , :- ' '
They argue that liquor is the cause of poverty, and then in
order to overcome the citizen's plea for "personal liberty" ad-
mit that it is perfectly legal and proper to drink, provided the
liquor is not purchased in Omaha or the State of Nebraska.
They ask the citizens of this city and state to ; believe them
when they say that liquor is at the bottom of eighty per cent
of crime, but from their interpretation of the law they h:ve no
objection to any man drinking in the exercise of his "personal
liberty," provided he buys his wet goods from St. Joe, Kan
sas City, Chicago, Milwaukee or St. Paul. Go hear any dry
speaker and see him weep tears over the condition of the poor
intemperate man, then ask him if this amendment will pro
hibit this intemperate man from drinking liquor. They would
make it unlawful to secure intoxicating beverages In Omaha
and this state, and then by the interpretation of this amend
ment they tell nim'he can have all he wants, provided he se
cures it from outside dealers. Liquor purchased by the mail
order route from St. Joe, Kansas City and Chicago, and other
wet cities, and abused in Omaha and this state, will make a
man just as drunk as that purchased of a local licensed dealer.
Now, in order to procure your supply under the proposed
prohibitory amendment, you must patronize the foreign
brewer or mail-order liquor house. The liquor that you would
receive and that would be consumed in Omaha and this State,
would pay no revenue for the support of our school system.
The money that the prohibitionists are advocating us to send
out of this city and state into wet cities and states is forever
lost as far as our city and state is concerned.
The admission that the amendment will not prohibit the
shipping in or the use, should not only brand the amendment
a dismal failure, but a screaming, staggering farce. It would
make no difference in Omaha or any other community in this
state, for no man can do more than exercise his fullest personal
. liberty, the same as he would do if the amendment was in ef
fect, in drinking as he pleases. The only difference is, he
would not be compelled to send his money to St. Joe, Kansas
City, Chicago and other wet cities.
Again we state that if this amendment is not a prohibitory
amendment, as far as the shipping in and the use of liquor is
concerned; if it does not mean downright prohibition, it means
nothing, and it is ihe greatest farce that could be attempted to
be voted into the Constitution of our Sovereign State. '
The yofers must choose between the revenue-paying
saloon and the "blind tiger" and "bootlegger." The question
which they must decide is this: -
Shall the people who drink have their liquor with or with
out local revenue?
If your proposed prohibitory amendment does not pro
hibit the shipping in nor the use of liquor, then why vote the
city out of $353,000 annual revenue, throw 2,000 men out
of employment with their 1 0,000 dependents, place a 25 per
cent increased tax rate on the taxpayers and disorganize busi
ness interests in this city and throughout the state. ;
Mr. Prohibitionist, you may fool some of the people some
of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
Liquor purchased from foreign mail-order liquor houses,'
as you would have the residents of our city and state do, pays a
revenue into the city in which these dealers are located. Why
should Omaha and Nebraska be deprived of revenue upon
liquor consumed within their borders)
' If the prohibitionists do not want to rob men of their per
sonal rights, what is all this noise about? They should either
stand by their prohibition guns or give up the ship.
It looks very much to us as though the prohibitionist was
intending to prohibit the laboring man and not the rich.
To vote down class legislation, vote NO.
Douglas County Taxpayers' League