Prohibition Prohibits

To the Editor of The Register : Sir :- Since the people of Washtenaw county are about to vote on the question of prohibition, they are undoubtedly interested in learning how prohibitory laws work where now in force. It is on that account that I venture to offer for the perusal of your readers certain facts as they are related by thedeputy sheriff of Hardin county, Iowa, which carne to my notice during a recent visit to that state. So far as possible I shall make use of his own language. "The facts which I submit," he wrote, "were learned by observation in over five years' experience in the sheriff 's office, and as shown by the official records of the county. To my mind the evidence is sufficient for the belief that prohibition is right, and that the liquor law is as well enforced as any other criminal law on our statute books. It has made near a $1,000 shortage on the sheriff 's fee?, but as I hear of the same complaint from most every other sheriff in the state, I console myse'.f with the thought that I have good pany. Hardin county has not a saloon where intoxicating liquors are openly and publicly 8old in violation of the law. When I came into the sheriff 's office there were thirty-four saloons in the county; now, not one can be found." After speaking of the greater degree ff iudustry and sobriety whioh followed tre enactment of the Clark law, the deputy sheriff continúes : "The records of the District Court inake a showing as regards crime that is surprising. In Hardin county : "1. The number of prosecutiong for violations of the liquor law under prohibition is less than under license. "2. The number of all criminal prosecutions under prohibition is less. "3. Then, as a consequence, jnil commitments under prohibition are less. "4. The cash receipts from liquor law violatora for fines and costs under prohibition are greater. "5. The oost of prosecuting the liquor dealers under prohibition is lens." These statements are supported by ref ■ erence to the files of indictments kept a the office of the Clerk of the District Court and ot those reported by the Justices of the Peace. In the District Uourt for the six years preceding 188G, the year affected by the passing of the Clark law, the average number of prosecutions had been fif'ty; in 1886 the number was re - duced to eighteen. Of the cases brought before the Justice Courtg, the average number had been seventy-two ; in 1886 it was thirty-two. The deputy sheriff, from whose letters I have taken these figureg, analyzes the cases brought before the courts, and there seems to be no reason to doubt that the extinction of the saloons has lessened the cost of criminal procedure in Hardin county. Said a lawyer to me in epeaking on this subject: "Were it not for the Rainsbarger cases, the criminal practice of Hardin county could not support a family." The Rainsbargers, it should be expiained, are a gang of notorious horse thieves who for twemy years have furnished the county with legal amusement. Now it may be said that Hardin county is a iarming commumty ; that n has no large town, and on that account the lavéis easily enforoed. Tuis is true, but it ia not true that the law is a dead letter in all the large towns. The strongest evidence in favor of the Iowa law, so far as my observation goes, is the fact that prominent men who voted against it are now its firm supporters. For exatnple, in Waterloo, a town of about 10,000 inhabitants, it would now be as difficult to push through a vote for the repeal of the law as it was to get votes for the law when the question flrst came up. It is not argument but the way the law has worked that has changed men's views. One curious fact was related to me by a lawyer. During the week following the rendering of the decisión by the Supreme Court on the brewery case, all the breweries in the state of Iowa, with one exception, either closed doors or promised to close by March, 1888. There can be no doubt but the sentiment for prohibition is stronger in Iowa to-day than it was three yearsago. Not having had occasion to visit the larger cities in Iowa, I cannot speak from personal observation respecting them, but it is probably true that in the river totvns the law is not well enforoed. Certainly the expenence of Providence, in the state of Rtiodo Island, is not encouraging. While in that city last week, I met one of the editors of the Providence Journal and inquired of him how prohibition was working. His reply led me to believe that it was not working in Providenee as its friends had hoped. There are now 591 places in that city where liquor is openly sold; under the license law there were less than 450 saloons ; 1 have forgotten the exact number. Such facta of course teil as strongly against prohibition as the facts which come from Iowa teil in its favor. The truth seems to be that the wisdom of a prohibitory law depends wholly upon the public sentiment of the community to which the law is to be applied. If there is a strong hope even that the law can be fairly enforoed, the argumenta are wholly in its favor. If on the other hand there is moral certainty that the law will be a dead letter, it would be foolish to abandon the present system by which the liquor trafflc is placed under some d.?gree of control. Can the law be enforced ? Such is the question for the voters of Washtenaw to decide. For myself, I see no reason why prohibition cannot be as well enforced in this connty as in raany of the counties of Iowa. The obstadas are no greater, and the sentiment appeara to be stronger than in man y localiiies of that state three years ago. And when we think of the advantages which will come with success, to the towns as well as to the Uaiversity and Normal school, it certainly seems that we can afford to give the matter a fa:r trial. Very truly yours,