Book Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 edition. Excerpt: ...enforcement of prohibition in the cities of the State. It should also be mentioned that prohibition prevents a community from passing any law.s for reclaiming or protecting its drunkards. Where in theory there is no drinking, in theory there can be no intoxication; but from the practical point of view such arguments cannot be justified. That prohibition has seriously harassed the retailer is clear from the fact that he has always found money enough to contest it bitterly in the Courts and in politics; where the manufacture of intoxicants has been attacked, complete success has been met with. It has often made it difficult for the ordinary man to get a drink, and temptation has thus besn removed from many. Incidentally it has been the means of devising many useful restrictions on the liquor traffic, of which other States have not been slow to avail themselves. It is impossible to say whether it has actually diminished drinking, that is, whether less has been drunk in a State when under prohibition than when under some other system of law. Local option is now the most widely prevalent system in the United States, embodying as it does the thoroughly American principle of decentralisation and delegation of authority. In a way the same theory underlies both local option and prohibition. The Constitution allows each State, if it chooses, to prohibit the sale of intoxicants; so the States allow each county, city or town, likewise, to adopt prohibition if they wish. The only difference is in the size of the unit, and the tendency of legislation is now to make the unit smaller and smaller. Oregon allows districts within the county to join together for local option purposes; Ohio provides for local option by res9dential districts. It is endeavoured...