How It Worked In Monroe

Michigan once liad a prohibitory law. Tliose who retnember anytliing about it remembel that tlie law was not enforced, and that the sale ot' intoxicants, cspcci illy In all the large villages rnd cities, was practically free. It is asserted, and wc bclieve it to be true, that under the present high tax luw there are a rood inany saloons in tlie statf. n proportlon in inli.ibitaui--, Ih ni [he e were und r tlie oíd prohibí tory law. Ccrtain it Í8 that there wal more drunkenneM In the ¦t reets of Moa roe than now. Tlien t was d comni'Mi thlng, especially upon auy hnliday, lo see u timbero of noisy druuken men opon the itreetr, Now it is a rare (hing, upon hollasíor anj' other day One of the principal argument In favor ot' the amendment is that the tax or license law recognizea the saloons as a leritliuate liu-iiii's, and In a eense legalizes a ureit wrong. The qaestlon arises, if saloons can be restricted in nuuiber and DtemperaDOe simdually dlinlnislied nader a tos law, is it not betlerthus; and to m ike the saloons pay ai nearly as possible the cost of the pauperism -and the criini-s whicli they créate. As;ain, iu Monroe as in the most of the cities, [ub lic lentlment win nat enforee amny of the provisions of tUe present law tax. Hmv ever can it be expected to enfnrce a prohibitory law. In nearly every State wlicic prohlbltlon is benig tried it i found that tliere are a largor number of renden of intoxioants than there were under a tax law. I there any reason to l. -lieve that Mioliijian will be an eXceptlontothUf It nor, is it better to have I larger number of liquor sellers, doing I)ii8int'ss either bolilly or by stealth, according to the public sentiment In the c-ominunity in whicb they live, but anainst and under the ban ot the law, or to have a lesser numb.'r under the present law. lnefflclently e nf o roed a it often is? These are qitestions whicli every In telligent voter nhould well consider, and should vote according t') hls oonylcMon of right and the public good