PROHIBITION IN IOWA.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 846, 19 January 1883, Page 2

PROHIBITION IN IOWA.

On the 27th of last June the people of lowa, by a majority of nearly 30,000 (writes the American correspondent of the Dunedin Sta?), decided to place in the Constitution of that State an amendment which declares that “ No person shall manufacture for sale, or sell or keep for sale as a beverage, any intoxicating liquor whatever, including ale, beer and wine.” This new law is not directed against the individual right to use liquors. Its sole aim is to destroy the business of selling and manufacturing as a beverage, and it is in no sense a sumptuary law. The issue between the

people and the saloons was squarely met, being stripped of every other consideration of a political nature. All parties voted for it, all parties voted against it, the difference being nearly 30,000 of - a majority in favor of the measure. Prohibition was no new thing in lowa. As early as 1841, while yet a territory, its first Governor, in a message to the Legislature. speaking of the effect of liquordrinking and liquor-selling on the Indian, said : “ Humanity shudders and religion weeps over the cruel and unrelenting destruction of a people so interesting by means so dastardly and brutal that the use of the rifle and . sword, even in a time of profound peace with them, would be comparatively merciful.” The legislature in that session prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors to Indians. In 1851, long before the Maine Law was enacted, a law was passed declaring every dram shop a public nuisance, and prohibiting sales under heavy penalties. In 1855 the question of prohibition was submitted to the people for a popular expression of their will in the matter, and it was carried by a majority of nearly 3,000 out of a total of 48,200. At about this time a heavy immigration set in from foreign countries, chiefly from Germany and Holland —a people who sought to • preserve the social life and customs of the Faderland secure from what they called Puritanical intolerance, and who obtained through the Legislature in 1858 a concession, permitting the sale of ale, beer, and native wine in cities and towns favorable to such license, with local option providing for entire ~pTTftrrhrnrm wli-nn-t l '-? ''-immnn?tieg~~d«»sired it. This concession wai~ given in the face of the expressed will of the people, and remained the law from 1858 until June, 1882. It was asserted by the friends of the that the use of mild liquors would eventually supplant and drive out the stronger stimulants, and introduce into the State an era of Arcadian simplicity. Stringent provisions were made against selling even beer toj minors, intoxicated persons, or persons who were'in the habit of becoming intoxicated. The saloon-keeper was required to keep an orderly house, to close at 9 p.m., and to keep closed during the Sabbath Day. Now for the result. After twenty-four years of trial the experiment was proyen to be a most complete failure. .The saloon-keeper engaged in the business for gain. Avarice never permitted the restrictions of law to stand in the way of their sales. They sold to everbpdy who had the money to pay for itj and in many instances the family Bible, the wife’s clothing, and children’s^hoes were taken as security for payment. 'All kinds of liquor were sold under cover of their license to sell only ale, beer, and native . wine. Violations of law were systematic The Courts were burdened with costs of prosecutions. The system led directly to crime that filled the gadls, penitentiaries, and almshouses. The Sabbath Was habitually broken and dishonored. The saloon gave a new definition to perjury by teaching its customers to so testify that fconviction would be impossible. Juries were found to sympathise with witnesses who were not experts in chemistry. Not, content with this the saloon system became an organised force that blocked the Courts, defied the law, voted solidly against every good citizen favorable to the enforcement of law and good order, suborned witnesses, bribed prosecutors, and closed the mouths of the Judges. When the people of the State, losing all. patience, clamored for a constitutional amendment, it was with the view to. take the question up out of the slough of local politics, and to put it on a rock and beyond the power of every succeeding Legislature to meddle with it, except to make laws for its rigid-en-forcement, no matter what their personal opinions or interest may be. Every legislator and State officer must take an oath to observe and maintain the Constitution of the State, of which the Prohibition Amendment is now a part. The question was frequently asked during the canvass, would prohibition prove impossible of successful enforcement ? Such, has been true of our best license laws. It has been found to be utterly impossible to regulate an evil. Would its frequent violation.not produce disrespect for all laws ? No worse than our best license laws during an experience of twentyfour years. The present status of the new law is that it is passing a crucial test through the lower Courts up to the Supreme Court, which is expected to render a decision at an early clay. The way will then be clear, and the saloOn must go. The effort is worth the cost. A State which produces six tons of grain annually for each inhabitant; with a public school system employing 2,100 teachers; with innumerable church spires pointing heavenward from every city, town, and hamlet, can reach a high grade of intelligence. A State of thriving, prosperous, and contented people, set free from the curse of intemperance and all the evils that follow in its train, has been the dream of the ages. No good citizen will withhold his influence and personal effort to secure the grand result. He who imagines that this law will fail of enforcement mistakes the temper of the people of lowa.