Prohibition

From the Detroit Tribune. An erroneous opinión prevails to a considerable extent in regard to the position ol the republican party on the proposed imi-ndiuent lo the constitution known as tlie prohibitory amendment. A careful review of the facts will, it is believed, remove this opinión. Just let ui glance at the record of the dimocr:itic party on the prohibition ques;iou. The constitution of 1850, adopted ly ti democratie conveiition and ratitied tv i vute of the people of 36,000 in a round total of 46,00, in a -tale tlien laigely leinocratic, contained tliis clause, (Sec. 47, Art. 4) : "The lefctalfttura sliull not pass any law authori.ing the graDtliig of I censes tor the sale ut ardeut spirits or other intoxicating liquors." This provisión was construed as an intendfd prohibition of the Ikjttor trallie. Actitig upon this eonstructioa the democratie legislatura of 1852 passed the iirt rohibitory law in the state. But unwilling to assume the respouslbillty of it, the iet was retened to i vote of the people nul was approved in a state then still argely democratie, by a popular majoritv f some 2,0000. This act was deelared unc.iiüiulioiial liy the oiipreme couit of the state. The repabltean party came into power in the state in 1834, and aeting ander the democratie constilutioii, a second prohihitoiy law was passed by them i:i 1855. Tuis act stood the tests ot the courts, but It did not Stand the test of experience. The history of that law is (00 well kuown to need rehearsal here Afler twenty reari of trial the repabHcM leglilaiure in 1M75 repealed the prohibiloiy law and ¦ubsliluted in Itl Itoid the plan ot' taxation and regulatktn. At the saine session a republkaii legislature submitted nn aineiiiliiient to the constitution to strike out tlie prohibitory seclion that is quoted foregoiog, and the imendment was ratilied by the people and the section stricken out. l'his lett tlie whole subject under the co.itrol of the legislature, where it OUghl to rcinain. The euDMitUtkHI itself provides that the legislature, by a vote of two-thirds ol eacb house, way propoas amendments to '.¦ Miird upoii by Ihe people. At the sesioii ot lsl laige niimbt-rs ol pelilions, üggnsgHtilig some 80,000 ii.-nnes, wen pie.-ented, a:-king the legislature to submil a prohibitory amendineiit. These petltioni created a very geueral sentiment in the república party that in deference to llieir denaaad the people ought ti bc given an opportuniiy to vote on the question. This .-eiitiinent took fora in tlie adoption by the republican state conveution of l.-iSL ot the following resolution : "Jtisa fundamental right of theeple lo alter, trom timeto time, the organic law of the statf as new clrcuinstanoe.s or evils may rtquire, laying its foundations on such principies aml oiganizing its power in toen a form as to thein hall ,t em most likely to iiflVct their salety and happiuess. The evils of inteniperance have become so great lliat, in the name of patriotisni, must ettioieut measures oujfht to be taken to reduce those evils to a minimum, and as atemben of no political party are wholly agreed as to whether this can be best done by prohibition or regulation of the trafflc in taxing liquors, and as the people are and mulit to be final arbitrators of this question, and as more than a hundred thousand amonj; the moral and intelligent people of the state have asked by pelition ibaC that question be pul to the people by subiuissiou to them of a prohibilory co.istitutional ameiidment, we declare that we believe that it would be wise and patria tic for the next legislature to submit such iiuiendment to the direct vote of the peo pie, and we demand that it be so subinitted." A similar resolutiou was also passed by the republican state conveiition of 1884. It was iint muil the pressent session of the legislature, however, (1887) that the republicana found themselves with a sutficient majority in that braucb of the governmeut to give effect to their declaralions. And they are not strong enough of themselves even in the present legislature to have passed the anieiidment without the aid of democratie notes. Fully thirty-three per cent. ol the democratie meuibers of the house vot.ed with the republicans in favor of submitting the iiniendinent, and it could not have been passed by the necessary two-thirds without their votes. The republicans, however, are responsiblo for it as carrying out their plcdges (as they have redeemed all pledges made to the peeple), and there their resjionsibüüy as o party end. The republicans have submitted this question in pursuance of the demand of a larue number of the people of the state and of their promise to do so. But because they have submitted it, does not pledge them in favor of it. Not at all. And here is the error into which many persons have tallen. Consider this one thing for a moment. It requires sixty-seven votes in the house of represen tative, and twenty-two in the senate (or two-thirds in each body) to submit a constlüitional amendment. Fifly-one votes in the house and seventeen in the senate (or a bare majority of each body) are all that in required to pass n law. JdW, if the republican party was in favor of prohlbilion the larga republican majority in the leglslature would enalilr themttO pass a pruhibltoiy lar without laking the rounü-about course (and liaving lo rely upon democratie hel]) at that) to submit B constitutioual ainendin ent. Thus prohibition is not and cannot be held to be, a republican measure. As lias been said, the legMfttare have entile contiol of the subject now, either to Iass a pruhibilory law, to adhere to the tax sysiem, or to repeal all laws relating to tlie liquor trallie, and leave it entirely free. If Ihe people want pi olii bition let them ehoose a legUlaturfl that will enact it. We should bu willing to trust the people. l'rohibition is an experiment, and so fnr as it has bei'n tiiod has DOt proven n protllable one. As an ezpwuunt it should not be placed in the constitutlno, but the whole matter ihould be keut where it i?, In the control of the people through the legislature. All gooil citizi-ns %n in favor of reduciiiu', so lar as it can be done by law, the evil of iuteniperancu. Expwwnoe bas ghown that tliis can be more effectively done ti líder a judicions poltcy of txxation and'policc regulation,tlian under so-called prohibition. A single fact on this head seems conclusive. In 1874, ander socalled proiii bltlon, the United States internal revenue service coilected taxea trom 8,180 saloons in the state, the population tben being 1,334,000, or one saloon to eacb li:i of the population. In 1880, ander the tax law, tliere were 6,080 suloons In a population of say 1,982,000 (the present population is to be held to lie 2,000,000 In round number9), or one saloon to web 327 of the population - in other words, a proportionate reductloii of just one-lialt. Added to this is the lire local tax tliat the liquor tux law yields, whicb woukl be wholly lost if the proposed amei:duici)t should nrevail. Detkoit, M.ireh 14.