UNDER WHICH KING, BEZONIAN?
TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l have discovered that there are two J. Sievwrights. ■ Both profess to be total abstainers, both are interested in prohibitory liquor legislation, and both profess to know something about it. Here I fear the analogy of the two men ceases. One is a resident of this country, the other of the granite city. One is lecturer to the Liberty-otim-Liqnor League, is opposed to Prohibition, and is interested in its alleged failure ; the other believes in prohibitory legislation, 6pd affirms the benign character of its operation. The one gathers what he calls the evidence of failure from the statements Df its opponents and pro-liquor men ; the other speaks from act ual personal observation. The one is James Dickson Sievwright, the olher is plain John. The former lectures from the Liq—no, the Liberty League, platform ; the other wrote to the ‘ Scottish Reformer’ (published in Glasgow) from Toronto (Canada), where, as alsc in the United States, he had been spending a holiday. Among other places visited by him was the Prohibition State of Kansas. We know what the Mr Sievwright, of Otago, said of Prohibition in that State, and if you will allow me I will tell your readers something of what Mr John Sievwright, of Aberdeen, «vys °n the subject. He wrote : “ I happen, too, to be spending a few days with a gentleman in a good commercial position in Kansas, and he assures me that in the State of Kansas . . . Prohibition . , . does prohibit, and the people wish to have it so. It is from the peculiar position of the City of Kansas—one-half of it is in Kansas and one-half in Missouri, which is nob yet a Prohibition State—that the difficulty in the working has arisen.” Wo at this distance are too ready to lose sight of the distinction between Kansas the City and Kansas the State. From this arises much confusion in the minds of those who discuss or read of the working of Prohibition in Kansas. Kansas City, being built on the river Missouri, is described as “ the second city of the State of Missouri,” but a suburb of some 43,000 inhabitants stretches on the other aide of the river into the State of Kansas. This suburb is under the prohibitory law of Kansas, while the city proper is under some sort of license law. “ The effect of this is,” says Mr John Sievwright, “that those living in this suburb in Kansas State who wish liquor can cross the State line in the city and get as much of it as they like; but on tho Kansas side there is not one saloon open for the sale of liquor. • . • • The inhabitants of the Missouri side of Kansas (City) are looking for Probibition, which is the strongest possible proof that those on the spot know that ‘ Prohibition will prohibit ’ when they want the law brought into operation for their side of the city. . . , The cause of Prohibition and obedience to the restrictions on the liquor traffic in the United States are gaining ground steadily.” The result of the recent attempt to introduce the saloon into Topeka, the capital of Kansas State, affords satisfactory evidence of the soundness of Mr John Sievwright’s observation,—l am, etc., _ St. Mungo. Dunedin, September 6.
Permanent link to this item
UNDER WHICH KING, BEZONIAN?, Evening Star, Issue 10416, 10 September 1897
UNDER WHICH KING, BEZONIAN? Evening Star, Issue 10416, 10 September 1897
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.