AS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FORESEEN.
For several years the state of Indiana has been fighting the saloon evil by means of remonstrance instead of prohibition. When the remonstrance plan was inaugurated, says the Patriot Phalanx, “the remonstrances were against individuals and not directly against the saloon business. One year ago the law was changed in this regard by the Moore amendment, so remonstrance could be filed against granting of any license to retail intoxicating liquors, that is, against the business, in a township or ward, the prohibition to be good for two years. As before, when the law was first enacted, and later when the blanket remonstrance was discovered and pronounced all right, so even more when this last amendment was adopted, the saloon was practically doomed from about four-fifths of Indiana's territory—if we were to believe the prophecies of its sponsors and special friends.” The result of this method, however, has not been a reduction of saloons, but rather an increase. The state statistician gives this report: “The official record, furnished by the state statistician, is this: Number of saloons, 1898, 4,013; 1899, 4,267; 1900, 4,370; 1901, 4,877; 1902, 5,169; 1903, 5,049; 1904, 5,163; 1905, 5,257.” Of the difficulties encountered in trying to make the remonstrance law a success, the Phalanx says: “It would be a long story to tell of the difficulties and hardships endured in trying to make this remonstrance law a working success. In numerous instances, hundreds of signers of remonstrances have been summoned to the county seat to prove their signatures. Where remonstrators lost out, costs are charged up against them, amounting sometimes to hundreds of dollars. With a local-option election, secrecy of the vote is preserved; with a remonstrance, every signer is known and becomes liable to the persecutions of liquor-sellers and their tools. In a local-option contest only those who vote are counted; in remonstrance method all voters not signing are regarded as in favor of saloons.” Then follows this very logical conclusion: “It is impossible to kill the saloon by selling it the right to exist. We first give it the general right to be in the state, making it legal, then try to undo that work by these local efforts. The reasons for failure are very apparent.”