CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION.
By C. P. B.
DURING the past two years, Michigan, Texas, Tennessee, Oregon, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, have rejected constitutional prohibition by majorities ranging from 5,000 in New Hampshire to 185,173 in Pennsylvania. It is evident, therefore, that constitutional prohibition is not in favor with the majority of the voters of these States, but this is very far from being evidence that prohibition is not a good thing, and that it should not be generally adopted. We are not of the number who believe that the voice of the people is the voice of God. In fact, the majority of the people have always been arrayed against God, and this for the reason that the natural heart is not subject to the law of God. We believe firmly in constitutional prohibition. The standard arguments used against it have really no weight; and we can see no good reason why every State should not adopt it. It is universally admitted that the traffic in intoxicating liquors to be used as beverages is an evil. It is everywhere placed under restriction. In many States those who engage in it are required to pay enormous licenses; and, whether they realize it or not, every man who agrees that the liquor business should be subjected to such restrictions and should pay such licenses, admits that it is an evil. But it is urged that prohibition does not prohibit, and that it is better to regulate the traffic than to attempt to prohibit it. But the facts do not justify the assertion. We believe that it is true today that prohibition does prohibit. By this we do not mean that it dispenses entirely with all trafficking in intoxicating liquors, or with drunkenness. The people are not and probably never will be educated up to that point where the law will be fully enforced. There will always be individuals and neighborhoods that will in some way evade the law. But the fact remains that the open saloon is abolished, and that the amount of liquor consumed is very much less under prohibition than without it. The fact that more Government licenses have been issued in Iowa under prohibition than previously proves nothing. Few will try to violate the revenue laws of the United States, for the reason that the laws are rigidly enforced. There are more chances to escape the penalties of the State laws, hence, those who want to engage in handling liquor424in any manner shield themselves from the United States laws by paying the Government license. But their transactions are necessarily much smaller than they would be if they could also procure State license. When you drive the liquor business into cellars, back rooms, and garrets, you destroy its power for evil over those who have not yet acquired an appetite for alcoholic stimulants. It is the open saloon which is a menace to the rising generation.