anaheim-gazette 1913-10-02

FACTS AND FIGURES (This page is e WILL ANAHEIM HEED THEM? These Warnings are from the Mill of Experience. In its issue of September, 1911, the Mt. Angel Magazine, a well known Catholic publication, printed an article, that for sound argument and a recital of concincing quotations is especially deserving of careful consideration. The prohibition wave has at last engulfed California. Notwithstanding the immense hop and wine grape interests of that state, enough enthusiasm has been worked up by the Anti-Saloon League to enable them to continue calling elections under the new local option law. Singularly enough, the league insists article, that for sound argument and a recital of concincing quotations is especially deserving of careful consideration. The prohibition wave has at last engulfed California. Notwithstanding the immense hop and wine grape interests of that state, enough enthusiasm has been worked up by the Anti-Saloon League to enable them to continue calling elections under the new local option law. Singularly enough, the league insists that their local option law is not a prohibition measure. In the same breath they admit that the law was purposely framed so that a dry vote is mandatory, but that a wet vote may be ignored; and, further, Superintendent Bristol says in his speeches: "After you have closed the saloons by local option you should go ahead and close the wineries and breweries by means of the initiative." It is difficult to convince people that this is not prohibition. Intemperance is an admitted evil; but the question that faces California is whether or not (Wyllie) local option is the best method of correcting this evil. This question can be answered in no uncertain terms from the experience of Eastern states where, for over half a century, state-wide prohibition and, more recently, local option have been on trial with equally unsatisfactory results. There the tide has already turned. "Error corrects itself," says the Tennessee News Scimitar, once a prohibition paper, now opposing it. From every quarter come reports of the rapid decadence of prohibition. Alabama has renounced it; Texas declined it; in the 1911 legislatures, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Arizona, and others, gave prohibition a stinging rebuke; Kansas, Georgia, North Carolina and Mississippi are chasing under their drastic laws. And now prohibitionists are alarmed because Maine is to reconsider her state-wide law. For years prohibitionists have kept the people from voting on the question; but, finally, the murmurings against the law became so loud and insistent that last year the Democrats swept the state on a resubmission plank. The present chief executive, Governor Plaisted, states Main's experience as follows: "For fifty years we have had prohibition in this state; and, looking back over those years, no fair-minded man can avoid disgust. Not only has it the people from voting on the question; but, finally, the murmurings against the law became so loud and insistent that last year the Democrats swept the state on a resubmission plank. The present chief executive, Governor Plaisted, states Main's experience as follows: "For fifty years we have had prohibition in this state; and, looking back over those years, no fair-minded man can avoid disgust. Not only has it failed to prohibit, but hypocrisy, corruption, and disrespect for the law has been bred." Prohibition has been on the statutes of Kansas since 1880; and her experience is only an echo of Maine's regrettable folly. Hon. J. B. Billiard, twice elected mayor of Topeka, speaks of prohibition without mincing words: "It is not preventing the sale of liquor, is not decreasing drunkenness, and is not improving public morals," he says. "It has a demoralizing influence by creating a disregard for laws. It is more expensive to enforce, requires most of the time of the police, is a large expense to the city, causes graft and extortion, drives business away from the city and state, and enriches Missouri cities by the large liquor business they get from Kansas." Many men of sound judgment and unimpeachable motives have declared that prohibition is actually a stumbling block to true temperance. Their dignified and conservative statements demand the attention of thinking men; and they do not lose by comparison with the flighty utterance of professional anti-saloon leaguers whose salary depends on their activity and continual agitation. Space permits me to mention only a few of these witnesses; but it should be remembered that these men are speaking not only of state-wide prohibition, but of local option, and of the very conditions that are facing California today. "Local option is not right in principle nor effective in practice," says Wiley J. Phillips, one of the best known temperance workers in the United States. Cardinal Gibbons: "Prohibition is impracticable. You cannot legislate men by civil action into the performance of good and righteous deeds." Bishop Satterlee: "Prohibition has been found wanting." Bishop Hall of Vermont: "Prohibition drives underground the mischief it seeks to cure, making it more difficult to deal with the evil and regulate the trade." Bishop Clarke of Rhode Island: "Prohibition has been disastrous to the cause of true temperance." Right Rev. P. J. Donohue, Roman Catholic Bishop, Wheeling, West Virginia: "While I recognize the evils of liquor traffic, I am nevertheless driven to the conclusion that prohibition will be a failure. In many states it is already a failure." Bishop Webb of Milwaukee: "I believe the general tendency of the Episcopal clergy is to favor, rather than oppose the well regulated saloon." Rev. William Wasson, after traveling over the United States investigating the results of local option, summed up his conclusions as follows: "The so-called local option that exists ANAHEIM GAZETTE ADVERTISEMENT FIGURES FOR ANAHEIM T (This page is edited under auspices of the Anaheim Taxpayers League.) Which Shall It Be? The Blind Pig or the Strictly Regulated High Licensed Establishment THE DAY IS APPROACHING when our citizens and taxpayers must decide whether this peaceful city, prosperous and happy, shall experiment with a known and proven failure—PARTIAL PROHIBITION. YOU must vote on the question: "Shall the sale of alcoholic liquors be licensed in this city"? That sounds simple, BUT the issue is about as complicated, the wording as misleading as can be. On the face of it, one would think that IF THE SALE OF LIQUORS IS FORBIDDEN, that would be the end of liquor, as far as Anaheim is concerned. Nothing is further from the truth. This election is held under the Wyllie Option Law and its provisions, and section 16 of this law permits the sale of liquor by druggists on prescriptions and I whether this peaceful city, prosperous and happy, shall experiment with a known and proven failure—PARTIAL PROHIBITION. YOU must vote on the question: "Shall the sale of alcoholic liquors be licensed in this city"? That sounds simple, BUT the issue is about as complicated, the wording as misleading as can be. On the face of it, one would think that IF THE SALE OF LIQUORS IS FORBIDDEN, that would be the end of liquor, as far as Anaheim is concerned. Nothing is further from the truth. This election is held under the Wyllie Option Law and its provisions, and section 16 of this law permits the sale of liquor by druggists on prescriptions and by manufacturers (wineries, distilleries and breweries) in quantities of not less than two gallons to any adult person. And it also permits the keeping of liquors at cellars, etc. These are indisputable facts. SHALL WE ADOPT SUCH A LAW? Would it be to the best interests of this city to try out such a proposition? Anaheim, long dormant, has begun to awaken. The tide of prosperity has begun to flow at a rapid rate. WHY CHECK IT? Our liquor establishments, under strict police regulation and conducted in quiet, orderly manner, have given NO TROUBLE, NO CAUSE FOR COMPLAINT. Our liquor dealers are men of high moral character, law-abiding citizens and taxpayers. Why drive them away? The revenue derived from our licensed liquor establishments is almost THOUSAND DOLLARS per year. Why Lose it? Under our present high license system we are not cursed with the vicious "Blind Pig." Why open the door for it? The advocates of this proposed "Dry" measure claim that it would clean (?) this city. Would it? And: Do we need Such cleansing? Let us review this whole matter from the standpoint of RALITY, TEMPERANCE AND PRACTICABILITY. It argue that law against the constitutes a Their lecturer ever and ever E of alcoholic sinful; they are consumption about its evil corrupting in Yet, they are our city which use the use and as it compels in the use of purchase them in quantities of not less than TWO GALLONS. Let us see how the CAUSE OF TRUE TEMPERANCE fares under this proposed Wyllie Option Law: All those who believe in the moderate use of alcoholic beverages—and by far the majority of the people do—as also those who keep liquor at home for emergency, in case of sickness, etc., will be led sorely into temptation, to over-indulgence and drunkenness, for this law compels the purchase of liquor in unreasonably large quantities, (two gallons or more). Instead of getting one bottle, as at present, one will have to buy AT LEAST ONE DOZEN BOTTLES at a time. Does such a law appeal to you, BELIEVER IN TRUE TEMPERANCE? Under this law, the price Anaheim will pay is the fostering of the illegal use of liquor, the establishment in our midst of numerous blind pigs and dives. Whenever a "Wet-or-Dry" election is held, prohibitionists make their slogan: "Vote for the Boy and against the Bar." The cry of "The Boy or the Bar" sounds attractive and does not sustained by facts. Our State Laws announce are exceedingly that respect, and as thereof means the license, it is next to imply boy to obtain alcoholic the bar. The LAW VE SEPARATES the BOY but it COULD NOT SAVE BOY from the LAWLESSIOUS BLIND PIG. To SAVE YOUR BOY our midst that most villainous rendezvous, th ERRONEOUS IDEAS SEEKING THE FOUNDATION FOR AN EFFICACIOUS TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT The humanitarian spirit of our civilized age had to take up the gauntlet against intemperance. The remedy lay, it was claimed, in enlightening the children in the school and teaching them the effects of alcohol. Even laws were passed enacting that the bad effects of alcohol should be taught as a part of hygiene. Thus text-books had to be manufactured. Now the cry is raised that the teaching of these text-books is not based on truth. The "Outlook," the "Nation," the "Educational Review," giving credit to Prof. Atwater, who discussed the subject of late at a meeting of the superintendents of the New England States, have printed various comments on the matter. The "Educational Review," (October, 1899), quotes from the "Outlook" the following statements: "It has been asserted (in the text-books) that alcohol is never a food and always a poison. This is scientifically erroneous. It is sometimes a food and sometimes a poison." "It has been assumed that drinking alcohol is a crime, which the law may prohibit by indirection, though it can not do it directly. This is politically erroneous." "It has been assumed that drinking in moderation is a sin and that drunkenness is a misfortune; the moderate drinker has been denounced and the drunkard has been coddled. This is ethically erroneous." "It has been assumed that temperance is identical with total abstinence from alcoholic liquors. This is philosophically erroneous. Temperance is such control of all the bodily appetites and passions as make the body the servant, not the master of the soul." Insofar as temperance reform is built on these erroneous foundations, it needs to be reconstructed foundation. Professor Atwater added meeting referred to abiding that intemperance but that there is a wrong way of teaching Professor W. I. Bowditch vard Medical College, the removal of intemperance brought about by an education; the people should use their common sense with this, Professor A. to proceed with temperance an ethical movement. Much good sense and be contained in these we can not help smiling failure of the school extirpating intemperance that are based on untruth that are manifest exaggeration they made from the lecture hall or from the form, will not only fail but have the dire consumming confidence and a state of doubt. Proharm their espoused these unscientific assays based on truth need coloring. DON'T FAIL TO READ THE ANAHEIM HERALD THURSDAY, October 2 EIM TAXPAYERS WYLLIE LOCAL OPTION LAW Enemy of Temperance —Is That What Anaheim Wants? WE publish herewith VER-BATIM, Section 16, of the Wyllie Option Law. Do you want the Wyllie Option Law here? Read it over carefully and judge for yourself: Sec. 16. Nothing in this act shall be interpreted as rendering it unlawful to keep alcoholic liquors for distribution, or to sell or distribute such liquors, in no-license territory in the manner and for the purposes in this section provided: 1st. The serving of such liquors by any person at his own home to mem- point of CABILITY sounds attractive and startling, but is not sustained by facts. Our State Laws and City Ordinances are exceedingly well drafted in that respect, and as any infraction thereof means the cancellation of license, it is next to impossible for the boy to obtain alcoholic beverages at the bar. The LAW very effectively SEPARATES the BOY from the BAR, but it COULD NOT SEPARATE the BOY from the LAWLESS, HIDDEN, VICIOUS BLIND PIG. To SAVE YOUR BOY keep out of our midst that most dangerous and villainous rendezvous, the BLIND PIG. it needs to be reconstructed from the foundation... In the temper- want the Wyllie Option Law here? Read it over carefully and judge for yourself: Sec. 16. Nothing in this act shall be interpreted as rendering it unlawful to keep alcoholic liquors for distribution, or to sell or distribute such liquors, in no-license territory in the manner and for the purposes in this section provided: 1st. The serving of such liquors by any person at his own home to members of his family or to his guests, as an act of hospitality, when no money or thing of value is received in return therefor, and when said home is not a place of public resort; 2nd. The serving or dispensing of such liquors by any registered pharmacist for bona fide medicinal purposes only, upon a prescription issued, signed and dated by a duly licensed physician; provided that the name of the person applying for the prescription and the name of the person for whose use the prescription is made shall be inserted therein by the physician issuing the same at the time the prescription is made or given, and that not more than one sale or furnishing is made upon such prescription, and that all such prescriptions are kept on file at the place of business of such pharmacist, open to public inspection; provided, further, that no such liquors so dispensed shall be drunk upon the premises where dispensed; 3rd. The selling of alcohol by a registered pharmacist for other than beverage purposes; provided that such pharmacist shall keep a record of such sales in which shall be entered the date of the sale, the quantity sold, the purpose for which purchased, and the signature of the person purchasing the same; such record to be open to public inspection; 4th. The selling of wine by a regularly licensed pharmacist for sacramental purposes only; provided such wine is sold only to a regularly ordained minister of some religious denomination, or upon the written order of the local official board or governing body of a religious organization; provided, further, that such pharmacist shall keep a record of such sales in which shall be entered the date of the sale, the quantity sold, and the signature of the person purchasing the same; such record to be open to public inspection; 5th. The distributing of wine at the sacramental service of any religious organization; 6th. The keeping of alcoholic liquors at cellars, vaults, or warehouses, it needs to be reconstructed from the foundation. * * In the temperance cause we have had zeal without knowledge and knowledge without zeal." Professor Atwater advocated at the meeting referred to above, the teaching that intemperance is a great evil, but that there is a right way and a wrong way of teaching this truth. Professor W. I. Bowditch, of the Harvard Medical College, thought that the removal of intemperance should be brought about by an educational movement; the people should be taught to use their common sense. Agreeing with this, Professor Atwater advised to proceed with temperance reform as an ethical movement. Much good sense and good will may be contained in these proposals, but we can not help smiling at the avowed failure of the school movement for extirpating intemperance. Text-books that are based on untruth, statements that are manifest exaggerations, be they made from the rostrum of the lecture hall or from the stump platform, will not only fail in convincing but have the dire consequence of undermining confidence and thus produce a state of doubt. Prohibition zealots harm their espoused cause through these unscientific assertions. Facts based on truth need no sensational coloring. body of a religious organization; provided further, that such pharmacist shall keep a record of such sales in which shall be entered the date of the sale, the quantity sold, and the signature of the person purchasing the same; such record to be open to public inspection; 5th. The distributing of wine at the sacramental service of any religious organization; 6th. The keeping of alcoholic liquors at cellars, vaults, or warehouses, receiving orders at such cellars, vaults, or warehouses for said liquors, and the shipping of the same therefrom; provided said liquors are not distributed or delivered to any person or place in no-license territory within the county in which such cellars, vaults or warehouses are located, except when delivered to a common carrier for shipment to a place outside of said no-license territory; 7th. The keeping of alcoholic liquors on the premises where manufactured, receiving orders at said premises for such liquors, and the shipping of the same from such premises; provided said liquors are not distributed or delivered in no-license territory within the county in which such premises are located in quantities of less than two gallons, are not delivered to any person or place in such territory within said county except as follows: (a) to a common carrier for shipment to a place outside of said no-license territory; (b) to other manufacturers of alcoholic liquors at the premises where they manufacture such liquors; (c) to cellars, vaults or warehouses where such liquors are stored or distributed as provided in the sixth paragraph of this section; (d) to any person at his or her permanent residence; (e) to registered pharmacists at their place of business.