صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

them; there is no decent ingredient in them that amelioration can fasten to them.

"It was cruel for General Sheridan to say: 'The only good Indian is a dead Indian.' It is not cruel to say, 'The only good saloon is a dead saloon.''

There can be only one effective method of solution and that is the annihilation of the saloon.


POLICY. Since we enforce and administer governmental policies through the agency of political parties, it,

once, becomes manifest that prohibition can be made most effective only when it is the policy of the ruling party. Local prohibition is often satisfactorily administered, but only so, when the officers charged with its execution are in sympathy with the principle.

The anti-saloon or prohibition democrats and republicans must either make prohibition a part of their party creeds, or they should become party prohibitionists, or all anti-saloon people unite in some new party committed to the annihilation of the saloon.

The Free Soil and Abolition parties kept the embers of anti-slavery alive for decades, but, when the people became aroused to unity of action, they chose a new party name, and so it may be with the saloon evil.

For practically a third of a century, the Prohibition party has consistently and doggedly pursued the saloon with a relentless determination to drive it out of a sanctioned existence.

The apparent results, for a long while, were not very encouraging, and from the standpoint of drawing public salaries, they are not now and may never be, but, from the viewpoint of antagonism to the saloon, the results are highly satisfactory to the sincere, honest prohibitionist. To the man, whose purpose is the good of society in the overthrow of the saloon, instead of party leadership and public office, it makes no difference under what party label the desired result may be accomplished.


No reasonable man would'intimate that a conscientious conviction of principle should be surrendered as a mere matter of expediency, but, while this is true, a sincere, conscientious antisaloon man should not refuse to array himself against the saloon in local option elections and remonstrance contests solely because absolute prohibition can not be accomplished thereby. Prohibitionists sometimes assume this attitude, and thereby injure the cause of saloon elimination.

However, it must be conceded that both local option and remonstrance statutes are compromises with the saloon evil, and they are compromises of a character that the people would not tolerate, for an instant, relative to gambling or the social evil. But, while such statutes are compromises, where public sentiment is favorable, they can be so enforced as to give an object lesson of the blessings of prohibition. Local prohibition, well enforced, is the strongest possible argument in favor of absolute prohibition.

CHAPTER XVIII OBJECTIONS TO SALOON PROHIBITION A very great many objections have been urged against the absolute prohibition of the saloon, some of them so flimsy and frivolous that they merely serve as an excuse for the person advancing them, and, yet, there are, at least, two excuses that are pretty generally adopted by saloon advocates, or rather by the opponents of saloon prohibition.

Do SALOONS HELP LEGITIMATE BUSINESS? There is a large element of people, whose pocketbooks are more sensitive than their consciences, who have been inveigled into the belief that saloons are necessary to business prosperity, and it is but fair to say that this notion is not confined exclusively to the saloon element.

There are men, who do not drink and who do not even visit saloons, who lend the saloon their moral support, or, perhaps, it would be more nearly correct, to say that they withhold from the antisaloon forces their support and influence upon the ground that the elimination of the saloon will be injurious to the business interests of their communities. To these people money is their god, and its acquisition is their sole ambition in life. If the contention were conceded to be well founded, it would not be a sufficient argument, because health, happiness, character and domestic peace can not be consistently bartered away for business success. But, even from a purely financial point of view, the argument is unsound and wholly without any foundation in fact. The presence of saloons does not advance legitimate business, but endangers it, and the absence of saloons, instead of injuring business, accelerates it.


PROSPERITY Nothing can be more fallacious than the theory that dens of vice and crime are essential to business thrift and progress. Dens of vice and crime mean the waste of time, the waste of energy, the waste of industry, the waste of earnings, the waste of mental capacity, the waste of moral character and the waste of health, and how can such drains upon natural conditions be conducive to the industrial welfare of the people? Concrete examples of the effects of banishing saloons from communities ought to be the best arguments either for or against the saloon as an industrial benefit.

OBSERVATIONS OF A GROCER A few weeks ago, the writer met a grocery man living in an Indiana town of about four thousand population, from which the saloons had been driven, by a remonstrance, seven months previously, and thereafter the law had been strictly enforced. A large per cent. of the population was made up of laborers in the factories. The grocer described the situation by saying: "When the remonstrance contest was on, I took no active part against the saloon. In fact, I did not sign the remonstrance. I was fearful that, if we put out the saloons, we should injure business. I was in debt, and I felt that I ought not to jeopardize my business. The remonstrance was successful. The saloons were closed. During the last seven months the law has been strictly enforced in the town against liquor selling, and I am glad to say that I was mistaken in the effect the closing of the saloons would have upon my business. In seven months, my grocery trade has increased more than 50 per cent. I have had no increase in the number of customers. My increase of sales is merely an increase in the amount of purchases by my former customers. I am now getting the money that the saloon keepers formerly received, and the families of these customers are now well fed, instead of going hungry, as they frequently did when we had saloons. I have learned that my real competitors in the grocery business were the saloon keepers, and not the rival grocers."

OTHER OBJECT LESSONS In September, 1907, there was a remonstrance contest to close the saloons in the city of Lebanon, Indiana. One day, when the battle was at fever heat, a farmer came walking into the office of the writer, and expressed himself thus: "They say it will ruin business, if we close the saloons. You know that I drink, and I am often fined for intoxication. If the saloons were closed, I would not drink and I would have no fines to pay. If I could save for my family the money that I now spend for liquor and the payment of fines, I would like to know how that would hurt my business."

With the saloons, this man and his family received disgrace, misery and unhappiness for his

« السابقةمتابعة »