PROHIBITION IS AMERICA
Tho Philadelphia " Pmjb " gives the Ml'iwing history of prohibition ia America :— • Illinois enacted prohibition In 1885, bat tho people repudiated It At the pol>B m the Biime ye -*■ New York ptsssd the law In 1854, tried it foe two pears, and ga?o it ap aa a bad MasQachnietta tried prohibition foe 15 yesra, and finally repealed it aa Tain and lujarlona. An effort to reßtore prohibition m Men* Baobusetta was voted down by an overwhelming majority, April 22, 1539. Atlanta tried the law for one year and repudiated it by an overwhelming majority In November, 1887. Connecticut euaotcd tho law m 1854, tried m vain ti eaforoe it for eighteen years, and then finally repealed It for ever m 1872 Ohio encoted prohibition m 1855, and after a few months of bitter experience repealed It. Maryland passed a prohibitory law In 1855. The results were so disastrous both to mater al and moral welfare, that after a few month*' trial it was repealed, and the lesson was bo severe that the question has never bea raised again In that State. New Hampshire tried prohibition for thirty-four years. April 12, 1880. an effort wis made to incorporate it Into hei Constitution. This was voted down by an enormous majority, only tiro counties m the State giving a m»joi(.y m favoi of prohibition. Delaware tried it m 1855, and after two yeara found that it so seriously affeoted the welfare of the State that it was repealed m 1857. The ladepeadent Anti-Prohibition JRepnblloans and Democrats of lowa are uelting for the purpose of overthrowing prohibition. The law was twice passed In Wlicon* sin and twice vetoed by the Governoi, with support of the people. That was m 1 1855. Slnoe then the State has bean untroubled by fanaticism. Rhode Island enaotei prohibition la 1853, and after ten years' trial repudiated the law In 1863. She again enacted It last year, and has jnst got rid of It, after one year of fioanoial and moral disaster. Aflohlgan pissod the law m 1853, and kept It for 22 years when, fiiding the futility of attempting to enforce prohibitory meooureß, she abandoned it In 1875. The fanatics tried to saddle the law upon her again this year, but her people would not have it, and overwhelmed It at the polls. Indiana and Nebraska m 1855 passed prohibitory measures, but neither of them kept prohibition upon their statute books for any length of time. Indiana voted on the question ag»ln In 1882, and tho tmeodooant was defeated by the biggest majority oast m that State for twenty years. Texas oast 93,000 mrjirity against the effort to force a prohibitory amendment Into her Constitution. An effort was made to force the law on Tennessee m 1887. The people, after a thorough discussion, resolved not to pat It Into their Constitution. Oregon submitted the amendment In 1887, but the amendment was burled under an avalanche of votes. In November. 1888, West Virginia voted on prohibition. The question was thoroughly discussed, and the amendment defeated by a vote of three to one. Canada has tried prohibition. The law was passed » few years ago, and on a reoonsldoratlon of the question on April 3, 1889, the voters slaughtered prohibition from L»ke Erie to the Bay of Fandy. Every olty and town In OftDada which voted thst day repealed prohibition. In lowa m 1880 thera were 3034 Government liceuees issued for the sale of liquor. In 1886, under prohibition, tho number had Increased to 4033— an lnoreasa of 999. For the year ending April 30, 1881, before prohibition, 1884 Government licenses to sell liquor were Issued In Kansas. In the yeor ending April 30," 1887, after five years of prohibition, 299| licenses were laaued ; m other words, there were 58 per cert more places selling lfqncr Id the year ending April 30, 1887, uncer p-oWtioD, than In the yea* ending April 30. 1881, before the enactment of the law: Thare had simply been a change of namo from "aaloen" to " drug store." Maine has more l'qnor-sellera In proportion to the population than many lioenso States, Rhode Island has ona liquor seliei to every 243 mon, (See Internal Revenue Reports.)
Id reference to the above Sir Wm. Fox writes to the "New Zealind Herald," character lalng the statements made sb misleading. He says — r ' That the prohibition party have lately mot with dlsooar* acting defoata m some of the States and Canada Is quite true, but prohibition li not defeated, and has not been "repealed." In none of their recent " defeats " haa « single prohibitory law been repealed. . . . The United States ai a whole, and each Stato separately, has a written Constitution, ezaotly defining the limits of tha rights and powers of the people, and the political maoblnery by which, they are to be enforoed, . , , , Now many of the States have paaiod prohibitory laws, whloh It wan quite la their power to do. Bat their legislator! oould at any time repeal those lawn, Iv order to prevent Bnoh a contingently sever? al of the prohibition Strtes have endeavors! to amend their Constitution, by l&ssrtlng their prohibitory lawi Into It. Maine was the first to do so, four ov five years ngn, by an enormous plebiscite majority. Eaoonraged by this several other States whloh had prohibitory laws In force attempted by the came meani to give them alrallar permanenoa, but several of them have failed In the attempt. But this has not resulted In any "repeal" of thefr prohibitory laws. TheHe oontlnua In force just aa before. . , Maaeaohaseits, for Instance, one of the States la wblch the boasted " repeal " has- occurred, haa at thin moment 275 oltles and counties under rigorous prohibition b# looal option, and only 75 towns untfoi license. . . The Pennsylvania osse Is preoisely nlmllar. , . l a Canada also we are told thai eert»ln oltles and counties «« repealed " prohibition. They did uothlng of the sort. They withdrew from It for three years, but the Act continues m force, and at next eleotlona thoy can relmpose prohibition. The Soott Act, whfoh gave Canada looal option, ban not been re« pealed. An attempt to repeal it In the Dominion Legislature wai defeated by aa enormous majority, and Is la force In every part of Canada at this hoar, though several counties sad oltles do not avail themselves of the power it gives." Sic William Fox quotas an artlole m another American journal commenting on the Philadelphia papers, In the strongest terms, as having been bought by tha liquor men, t> whom their columns hava been open for the dissemination of false statements and forged news despatches bearing on prohibition, which prohlbl.tlonlats were not allowed to oontroverk except by advectlaemenfß at prohibitive rates.
See our copyright guide for information on how you may use this title.
Papers Past now contains more than just newspapers. Use these links to navigate to other kinds of materials.
These links will always show you how deep you are in the collection. Click them to get a broader view of the items you're currently viewing.
Enter names, places, or other keywords that you're curious about here. We'll look for them in the fulltext of millions of articles.
Browsed to an interesting page? Click here to search within the item you're currently viewing, or start a new search.
Use these buttons to limit your searches to particular dates, titles, and more.
Switch between images of the original document and text transcriptions and outlines you can cut and paste.
Print, save, zoom in and more.
If you'd rather just browse through documents, click here to find titles and issues from particular dates and geographic regions.
The "Help" link will show you different tips for each page on the site, so click here often as you explore the site.