Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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