Debate of February 21, 1895.
Brief for the Affirmative.
W. F. HODGE and W. S. YOUNGMAN.
Best general references: Fifth Special Report of U. S. Commissioners of Labor, 198-236; Forum, XIV, 514-527 (Nov-1892); New Eng. Mag. XI, 785-797 (Feb. '95); E. L. Fanshawe, Liquor Legislation in U. S. and Canada, 60-81.
I. All plans not involving the elimination of private profits have failed to diminish waterially the evils of the liquor traffic. - (a) State prohibition does not prohibit: W. B. Weeden, Working of Prohibition, 56-93; Boston Herald, Jan. 24, '95. - (b) Prohibition by local option merely changes the place of sale. - (1) It does not effectively do away with the evils of liquor consumption. - (c) High license has also failed to diminish the evils: W. J. McFarland, Facts, not Opinions, 15-17. - (1) It simply makes a few dealers more greedy for large sales: E. L. Fanshawe, as above.
II. The elimination of private profits is the only practical method to diminish the evils of the liquor traffic. - (a) This is shown by the working of the Gothenburg system: New Eng. Mag. XI, 785-797. - (1) This plan if extended to malt liquors would offer a satisfactory solution of the liquor problem. - (x) It takes away the incentive to large sales. - (y) Liquor saloons would cease to be the headquarters for corrupt politicians. - (z) Saloons would cease to be centres for violation of laws.
Brief for the Negative.
W. D. BROOKINGS and H. A. BULL.Best general references: Bishop of Chester in Spectator, LXIX, 279 (Aug. 27, 1892); Fanshawe, Liquor Legislation in the United States; Spectator, LXIX, 918 (Dec. 24, 1892).
I. The best solution of the liquor problem must minimize the evils of the traffic with the least restriction on personal liberty.
II. Elimination of private profits is objectionable on political grounds. - (a) Involves extensive participation of government in liquor trade, - (1) Disposition of profits. - (2) Minute supervision by officials. - (b) Interferes unreasonably with liquor dealer's conduct of his own business. - (c) Regulates unreasonably personal liberty in drinking.
III. Proposition is objectionable on economic grounds. - (a) Prevents the satisfaction of a natural social instinct. - (1) A dispensary not sufficient. - (2) A shop conducted with philanthropic motives not sufficient. - (x) Men do not like to be objects of philanthropy. - (b) A strong demand of human nature will lead to violations of an opposing law.
IV. High license is the best solution of the problem. - (a) Greatly reduces drunkenness. - (1) By reducing the number of saloons, makes better control possible, and increases profits of saloon keeper. - (2) Makes a license too valuable to risk loss of it by selling to drunkards. - (3) Makes it to saloon keeper's interest to prevent unlicensed selling. - (b) Takes the saloon out of politics. - (1) Where tried, it supersedes all other legislation. - (2) Thus liquor dealer's have no motive for united political action.
V. High license is not open to objections raised to elimination of profits - (a) While preventing abuses it leaves desirable features of the saloon. - (b) Involves no unnecessary governmental interference with personal liberty.