THE NO-LICENSE PARTY UNFAIR

Evening Star, Issue 13090, 24 October 1908, Page 5

THE NO-LICENSE PARTY UNFAIR

INSINCERE AND SHUFFLING? • ' ...•■•• t,.' p - .-r-n ■ £I,OOO OFFER. _ _ f ■ (By Special Arrangement •with: Rev. Wm. Thomso£) The question is: Are the official figures from Maine ■which' 'are how published correct. Settle this question first, and others may be considered thereafter. •** ■ * • The No-license party held up Maine as the object-lesson in temperance for fifteen years. The public conscience demands that they face the truth,! otherwise they are convicted of cowardice, evasion, and shuffling. ’ ; ;t ; * * ♦ ♦ * '' *• • iA* Religion and morals are brought into ridicule by the No-license "party unless they meet the facts now published. * ♦ • « * * The No-license party is continually quoting figures from America—and publishing figures in the Dominion—yet now they say: “THE QUESTION. IS NOT ARE CERTAIN FIGURES CORRECT?” * * * * * ». ■ Why, then, are they quoted? Can humbug and shuffling go further? * * * * # * To show your, readers how No-licen:e increases drunkenness, the following figures will suffice. Assuming Portland at 56,000, New York at 3,500,000, and Philadelphia (it 1,600,000, then, at the same rate, in NEW YORK Year. 1902—There should have been 5 2,990 more arrests for drunkenness than there had been. ” » »> 83,229 more arrests for drunkenness than there had been. ” »* >» 88,063 more arrests for drunkenness than there had been. ■ ’ PHILADELPHIA, 1905—There should have been 21,691 more arrests for drunkenness than there had been. •* »> ” 19,45 2 more arrests for drunkenness than there had been. * • ♦ • • ' , Is No-license a failure? In New York it would thus produce an army of intoxicated persons, in the three years mentioned, of 224,282 more than there had been. Is this temperance? Reason and justice answer No. It is only prejudice and folly that would support No-license after such evidence.