Newspaper Page Text
doing. had been unfaithful to the oaths which they
took upon entering the jury box. had been recreant
in their duty as citizens, and had brought the pro
hibition law into disrepute; thus confirming the
observations of the committee of fiftv, if his charge
• 7 O
is true.
Meaning of the Florida Election.
The triumphant election of Hon. Allen \V. Gil
christ and the ignominious defeat of Hon. John X. C.
Stockton for the governorship of Florida in the
second primary, held Tuesday, indicates that that
reaction long expected against state-wide prohibi
tion in the South has already arrived. All over
Florida ministers of the gospel and women and
children for several months past have been issuing
public denunciations of Mr. Gilchrist on account of
his alleged sympathy with, the liquor interests. The
most eloquent prohibition orators of the South have
been imported to accomplish his defeat, but the
result of Tuesday’s election shows their efforts to
have been futile. 'Mr. Gilchrist has been nominated
by a majority of over 10,000.
'Pho results of the primary in Georgia on June
4th could not have been more satisfactory to the
liquor people, unless in the campaign prohibition
had been made an open issue and the candidate for
local option had been as successful as Mi-. Brown.
The legislature for 1909-1910 is expected to be over
whelmingly “wet,” and to ride over the governor's
veto to a local option bill. According to the results
in the Chatham county primary, where over 6.000
votes were east, there were only 163 consistent pro
hibitionists in Savannah. There can be no doubt
that the recent defeat of prohibition in Louisiana
is directly traceable to the growing sentiment against
prohibition as expressed at the polls in Georgia on
June 4th.
Whv this change of sentiment? Are the
people of Georgia, Louisiana and Florida rap
idly reaching the conclusion that the commit
tee of fifty, consisting of Hon. Seth Low,
president of Columbia University; Hon. Carrol
D. Wright. Rev. Father A. P. Doyle, Daniel
('. Gilman former president of John Hopkins Uni
versity; Rt. Rev. H. C. Potter and others not less
prominent in the study of social problems, were
right about the impracticability of absolute prohibi
tion? Are they about to reverse themselves on this
question and legalize the business of dispensing
wines and beers, if not liquors, instead of vainly
attempting to continue further their prohibition and
increase thereby the number of law violators, per
jurers and criminals ’
It would seem so; it is to be hoped so, for evi
dence is piling up every day to verify the assertion
of Mr. Low and his committee that prohibition is
far worse for a. number of reasons than intemper
ance growing out of the legalized liquor traffic prop
erly regulated.
in commenting on the report of this committee
in 1905, Mr. W. Rogers Starr. telegraph editor of
the Savannah Press, made the following interesting
observations anent the passage of a prohibition law
in Georgia. This law has now become a fact. The
committee's deductions, so far as we can see or
learn, were founded upon a wise and judicious reas
oning and have been verified in detail by the opera-
THE REASON
tion of the Georgia law. The Rev. Mr. Ainsworth
so admitted, so far as Savannah is concerned, in his
famous denunciation of the court and jury that has
suceeded in convicting only one out of over one
hundred charged with violating the law.
Mr. Starr, quoting largely from the report, said
as early as 1905:
“It must be clearly understood that we do not
take the stand that the whiskey evil should not be
abolished. On the contrary, we agree that it would
be better for humanity in general if not another
drop of whiskey or alcoholic beverages was ever
taken, perhaps, for any purpose, but we do most
emphatically state and contend that this state of
affairs cannot be brought about or even assisted by
prohibition. There is nothing better than prohibi
tion. PROVIDED IT PROHIBITS, but that is not
possible under the system which has several times
been agitated in the Georgia Assembly. Far from
having the desired effect, it would most certainly
make conditions infinitely worse than they are now,
and in this connection we will quote from the vol
ume published by the committee of fifty:
“ ‘The results of the investigation and the infer
ences from it which the sub-committee laid before
the committee of fiftv include a consideration of
prohibition, its successes, its failures, its concomi
tant evils, and its disputed effects; local option; the
systems of license's ; licensing authorities ; rest rict ions
on the sale of liquors; druggist’s licenses; and the
effects of liquor legislation on polities.’ I’mler the
head of prohibition, the following is said, in part :
“‘Prohibitory legislation has succeeded in abol
ishing and preventing the MANUFACTURE on a
large scale of distilled and malt liquors within the
areas covered by it. In districts where public sen
timent has been strongly in its favor it has made it
hard to obtain intoxicants, thereby removing temp
tation from the young and from persons disposed
to alcoholic excesses. In pursuing its main object,
which is to make* the manufacture and salt* of intox
icants. first, impossible, or. secondly, disreputable
if possible -it has incidentally promoted the inven
tion and adoption of many useful restrictions on the
liquor traffic.
“ ‘But prohibition has FAILED to exclude intox
icants completely even from districts where public
sentiment has been favorable. In districts where
public sentiment lias been adverse or strongly di
vided. the traffic in alcoholic beverages has been
sometimes REPRESSED OR HARASSED, but
NEVER EXTERMINATED or rendered unprofita
ble. In Maine or lowa there have always been coun
ties and municipalities in complete and successful
rebellion against the law. The incidental difficulties
created by the United States revenue laws, the
industrial and medicinal demand for alcohol, and the
freedom of the interstate commerce have never been
overcome. Prohobition has, of course, failed to sub
due the drinking passion, which will forever prompt
resistance to all restrictive legislation.
“ ‘There have been some concommitant evils of
prohibitory legislation. * * * qq ie public have
seen the law defied, a whole generation of habitual
law-breakers schooled in evasion and shamelessness,
courts ineffective through fluctuations of policy, de
lays, perjuries, negligences, and other miscarriages
of justice, officers of the law double-faced and mer
cenarv, legislators timid and insincere, candidates
3