Liquor Men as Prohibitionists
By Milton C. Wilcox
THE liquor men declare that prohibition is not just. They say, "Here is a man who has been running a saloon, licensed by the legal authorities, and prohibition destroys him and his business, a business that the country itself has fostered." Such an argument as that comes with poor grace from liquor men. Take, for instance, the little town of Lodi, California. It voted "wet" on the liquor question a few months ago, by seven majority. Now news comes to us that the liquor forces say, "We will reform." Lodi has had twelve places where liquor was sold. The liquor forces will only permit three, paying a license of $1,200 each. They will close the other nine. That is, they will do what they are charging prohibitionists with doing—unjustly crowd them out of business, and deprive them of a livelihood. Now, if it is all right for the liquor men to close nine saloons out of the twelve, surely they can not say that it is unjust on the part of the temperance folks to close the other three; and yet what the liquor men are doing in Lodi, they do in town after town if they think the liquor traffic will be the gainer thereby. It may be safely said, however, that there will be just as much liquor drunk in Lodi as before. Profit will be divided among fewer men, but crime will be just as great, and the "respectability" of the liquor traffic will lead many to drink in the palatial saloons that are left who would never think of drinking otherwise. M. C. W.