PROHIBITION IN GEORGIA.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVII, Issue 999, 29 April 1909, Page 22

PROHIBITION IN GEORGIA.

SAVANNAH IN PRACTICAL REBELLION.

“ Savannah (according to the brilliant Harper’s Weekly ’ published in New York) is reported to be in tacit rebellion against the State prohibition law in Georgia. Complaint is made that the law is not enforced in that city, and the Prohibitionists are yelling to Governor Hoke Smith to make an example of it. President Mrs. Armour, of the Georgia W.C.T.U., has inspected Savannah, and reports to the Governor that ‘ anarchy is rife ’ in that city. The rifeness of the anarchy consists, apparently, in letting the saloons sell drinks as of old, and raiding them once a month and collecting fines about equal to the former license fees. We read in the ‘ Sun, ’ an exceptionally veracious newspaper, that the brand of restriction which curbs the bibulous propensities of Virginia ‘ neither promotes morality and good public conduct nor contributes to the public revenue. The same authority finds that in Georgia and Alabama, more particularly in the cities of Atlanta, Savannah, Birmingham, and Huntsville, * prohibition now appears to have stimulated the criminal record and at

the same time crimped the treasury.’ There can be very little question that zeal has outrun .discretion in the anti-rum movement in the South, and that much legislation that has aimed to make States dry will have to be revised. The enforcement of prohibition laws in communities in which public opinion is strongly against prohibition is uphill work and bad for morals and public order. Short term local option laws, which permit any annual review of the question of license or no-license, seem to work best. That matter ought to rest on local public opinion, formed by observation of practical results. That never satisfies the Prohibitionists, who want all traffic and experiment with the possibilities of intoxication to be forbidden by law and prevented by all the power of the State. It does not accord with their purpose that any one, however temperate or responsible, should enjoy freedom of choice and conduct in the .matter of drinks.”