p. 16 | AGAIN DEMONSTRATED by W. N. G.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Mar 18, 1897

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 23, No. 11.

AGAIN DEMONSTRATED.

By W. N. G.

The anti-saloon campaign in this city is over, and the result is a defeat of temperance principles. The total vote cast was 9,928; of these 3,732 were for saloon closing, and 5,103 against the closing proposition. Consequently there were 1,093 persons who voted for candidates for office but did not vote on the saloon issue at all. In this election it has been demonstrated again, as it was in previous movements, that Sunday closing of saloons is not a temperance issue. The advocates of Sunday closing persistently claimed before the election that had the issue been for Sunday closing it could be carried; and now they are equally sure that it could have been carried, while the true temperance issue of closing saloons all the time was defeated. Thus they virtually concede that it was the Sunday-closing element that defeated the true temperance proposition. A committee of ladies canvassed the city before the election, and reported that over 5,000 voters were pledged to vote in favor of the proposition to close all the time; but the count of votes after the election shows that at least 1,300 of them either voted against closing or did not vote on that proposition at all.

The campaign was carried on quite enthusiastically, yet with a stultifying reluctance expressed by every prominent speaker in the sentiment, “This fight was forced upon us.” They all admitted that they were prepared for a Sunday-closing campaign, and were chagrined at being obliged to contend for closing up the evil places all the time. From first to last they held up the dire results of the open saloon, yet were unsparing in their censure of the men whom they charged with having forced them to contend for its entire abolition. Bad as the saloon was represented to be, these professed temperance advocates emphasized their regret that the issue had not been one of compromise with the evil thing by allowing it to operate six days in the week. Thus they stultified their otherwise able efforts from beginning to end.

The Tribune, which gave liberal support to the temperance cause, sums up the situation in a very logical manner, from which we take the following:—

“The fight was by no means an equal one. The liquor dealers are a strong and active body of men and have been organized for years. They have studied the art of politics and are familiar with all its methods. . . . The church people, on the other hand, did not organize their vote. Less than two weeks ago the matter of entirely closing the saloons was forced upon them. For four years, sustained part of the time by a sabbath closing association of which the active Dr. Rader was the head, they have made an aggressive campaign in favor of Sunday closing. Toward this end they had labored and felt certain of success. They had thoroughly canvassed the city and a large majority were in favor of closing the open saloons on the sabbath. All the church people and the Christian Endeavors, who represent a large body of the voters, are confident that Sunday closing would have carried by a big majority.”

Who, then, we ask, is responsible for the defeat of true temperance in Oakland?—Clearly it is the men who favor Sunday-closing of saloons, and of every other place of business as soon as they can stir up the intolerant sentiment to that extent. They have again demonstrated that their anti-saloon cry in the past was simply using the saloon as a fulcrum over which they could rest their lever for prying enforced Sunday observance into public favor. Our estimate of the Sunday-closing movement has been again verified, and we trust that the people who have been deceived by it heretofore will hereafter be able to view it in its true light.

And now comes “a prominent official of the Liquor Dealers’ Association,” and says, as quoted in the Tribune:—

“Let me tell you, that I believe more than one-half of the saloon-keepers would like to see their places closed one day in seven. Oakland is not a city where men drink largely on Sunday, and the large saloons in the center of business and official life are almost entirely deserted on Sunday by their regular patrons.”

Well, why do they not close, if they want to? There is nothing to hinder them but their own wills. They would not lose any more than they would if all the others closed. No one will claim that these men are actuated by temperance principles in their desire to close on Sunday; yet why not so reckon them as well as others? But in the light of the foregoing expression from an official who ought to know, what becomes of the oft-repeated Sunday-closing argument that there is so much more liquor sold in the saloons on Sunday than on other days? The argument is usually based on the fact that there are generally more cases of drunkenness in the Police Court Monday morning than on other days; but this is accounted for in the fact that on Monday morning there are the accumulations of two days’ cases, there being no Police Court session Sunday morning. W. N. G.