TAX LEVY THIS YEAR
MAY BE 2 PER CENT
Expenditures of the City Have Been Such This Year That It May Be Necessary to Make the Tax Levy Two Per Cent- Matter
Brought Out at Meeting of City Council Last Evening—Even With Big License Fees Town Will Have Difficulty in Main
taining Efficiency of Schools and Fire Department—Mayo r R. R. Myers Anxious to See Something Done Toward Having
a Sewerage System, But There Is Little Likelihood That A nything Will Be Done This Year—The Council Must Cut Out
Part of Its Present System If Alaska Votes Dry at Election in November—Expenses of Town More Than Budget.
♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ «♦♦♦♦,
♦ ♦
♦ “Another serious thing. If Alaska goes dry, where ♦
♦ are we going to get the money to run the affairs of the ♦
♦ city ? The council must look to the future. If this terri- ♦
♦ torv goes dry our revenues will depreciate greatly and we ♦
♦ will feel it this year.’’—Mayor R. R. Myers at meeting of ♦ |
♦ the citv council held last night. ♦ j
♦ ♦
♦ * * ♦ ♦ ♦♦ *♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
i From Fairbanks News-Miner.)
Tnat the tax levy of the town of
Fairbanks for the year 1916 may be
two per cent was sad news for tbe
property owners of Fairbanks that
was revealed at the meeting of the
city council last evening. The council
held a special meeting for the purpose
of discussing the approach to the new
bridge across the Chena river, and
during the discussion of the matter
and the talk as to ways and means, it
came out that the council may have
to tax the people of the town all that
the law will permit, and that is 2 per
cent. In other words, the indications
are thAt the council will not he able
to pay the bills already incurred and
keep the municipality a going corpor
ation without the big license moneys
and at the same tax rate as last year.
That the mayor and the council are
wondering where the revenues will
t'j'jijjj for t»»c* schools snc! fii*c I
department should the territory vote
dry was evident from the statement
made liy Mayor R. R. Myers at the
meeting, and after the meeting and
by statements made by other council
man.
CITY WOULD BE AFFECTED IM
MEDIATELY.
In bis statement to the council.
Mayor R. It. Myers said that the city
fathers should begin to figure where
the revenues would come from if the
territory went dry, and warned them
the town would be affected this year,
even if the dry law would not go into
effect for more than a year.
Asked what he meant, or how he
figured that the town would be af
fected this year, (lie mayor said that
lie understood, and it is a matter of
common knowledge, that many of the
men in the liquor husines sat the pre
sent time, would not renew their li
censes if the drys carry the territory.
They will start to “get from under"
and find new fields.
IY1MI I C« BHUUliM I UK.
After the council had disposed of
(he bridge question last night, the
mayor said that there was a matter
that he had been thinking of for two
years, and thought something ought
to be done about it: and that was the
sewer system of the town.
"There are more cesspools and wells
being dug every year,” the mayor
said, "and I believe it is the duty of
the council to start preparing plans
and specifications for a sewage sys
tem, if we do nothing else. Of course
we will not he able to do anything this
. year toward starting the actual in
stallation of the sewers, hut we can
make the start.
"Last spring, as we went around the
town to investigate conditions, we
found it most filthy and it certainly
must he a healthy climate or disease
would have been prevalent.
"If we are going to have a perma
nent town, we have got to have a sys
tem of sewers to guard the public
health.”
At this point Councilman Henry
interrupted by saying that while he
agreed with the mayor, he believed it
would he found a serious proposition,
the installation of sewers, and he be
lieved that the town would need the
services of a very expert engineer to
solve the natural difficulties to be
overcome, to say nothing of (he fin
ancial question.
Mr. Ray thought, however, that the
property owners should be warred
now against throwing rubbish in the
streets during the winter, so that it
would he necessary in the Bpring to
have the same cleaned up.
The mayor then went on to saw that
everything that Mr. Ray said was
true.
"Yes,” he went on ,‘T believe It Is
the duty of this council to take the
matter up. Of course, the first thing
to be considered is the expense.
"Another serious thing. "If Alaska
goes dry where are we going to get
the money to run the affairs of the
city? The council must look to the
future. If this territory goes dry our
revenues will depreciate greatly, and
we will feel it this year. But in face
of all this, we should take the sewer
age matter in hand.”
TWO PER CENT RATE.
Here one of the councilmen inter
im awaited before this city can go
ahead along old lines, let alone new
lines.
rupted by asking the finance commit
tee how the municipality stands fin
ancially, and how the levy would be
this year.
Henry Ray, chairman of the fin
ance committee, said that he could not
say definitely, but it looked to him
as though it might be necessary to
“press the limit,” in other words to
make the levy 2 per cent, all the law
would allow.
Further discussion brought out the
fact that the schools are liable to
want more money than was estimated
4*, »1-V.. J 410 AAA A 1
ill lilts uu ugci, w ii iv ii nun %> i v>, uuu. in
ready the statimate for street work
has been exceeded considerably and |
there will be some work in the spring.
So that, with all the license money,
and the taxes raised to the limit of
the law, the indications are that the
town will have all it can do to pay
its bills for the current year.
-»
OFFICIAL NOTICE GIVEN.
Last night the city council met in
extra session to consider the matter
of the approach to the bridge and the
expense thereof. The councilmen
talked among themselves, considered
the condition of the city and neces
sary improvements, and a ouestion as
to the present financial condition of
Fairbanks brought out the fact that
the assessment of property this year
must be the limit, or a 25 per cent
increase in city taxes, to meet the
expenses of the city with over $20,000
Included from taxation of the liquor
interests — that if Prohibition carries
this year it will be necessary for Fair
banks to procure the impossible (au
thority from congress to Increase) the
tax rate to 3 or 4 per cent) in order
to meet the expenses of the city as
they are today, or raise the valua
tion to double its present amount and
apply the 2 per cent allowance to the
inflated valuation.
Wherever Prohibition has carried
tho fiscal year which ended the li
cense system in such camp the sa
loons and liquor houses have ceased
to take out licenses and devoted the
remaining months of the year to “get
ting from under," just as they will
here. For instance, the license of the
Horseshoe and Fairbanks Buffet ex
pire June 30th, next. If Prohibition
passes and becomes a law, six months
from that date those places will be
closed forever by law — neither of
them would think of paying a year's
license to do business for six months,
and the government could not grant
them a year's license when it knew
that it could not license them to run
for more than six months. The re
sult would be that the city has got
its last license money from the sa
loons of Fairbanks, and SPENT IT,
TODAY, if Prohibition carries. With
so much money invested, six months ■
would be small enough time for those
saloons to dispose of the big stocks
and “get from under" as best they
could. All the money ($20,000) the
city is to get from the liquor inter
ests in Fairbanks if Prohibition passes
has been collected and spent — con
sequently, the councilmen are not
“starting" any alarmist stuff when
they today consider what is going to
happen to this city and approach fur
ther expenditures in a cautious man
ner.
Without the license money the nat
ural way to derive revenues and the
only way we know of is the Kansas
way — increase the valuation of pro
perty and apply the limit In taxation
to the increased valuation. Then, for
Instance, the Fairbanks Corner, which
now pays $600 annual city, taxes,
would be depreciated in value, rents
met r»dNiWfts ; ,
lowered, but DOUBLED IN VALUA
TION, and would pay $1,200 a year
taxes, or $100 a month, with Its earn
ing power decreased more than that
amount over its earning power of to
day. The two corners mentioned arc
considered to be the most valuable
in Fairbanks, but under Prohibition
no other business could afford to pay
the rentals that the liquor stores oc
i copying these corners feel that they
can pay.
The council is right in sitting tight
and worrying about where next year's
money is coming from. The result of
the work of the Prohibitionists must
lie awaited before this city can go
ahead along old lines, let alone new
lines.
WHAT AFFECTS ONE
AFFECTS ALL CITIES
The voters of Alaska have no oe ]
easion to go out of their way to eon
sider the question of Prohibition as
applied to Alaska. Prohibition is no
thing new in Alaska. Alaska was ALL
“Prohibition” until the closing days
of 1898. Nobody could obtain a li
cense to sell liquor in Alaska, yet in
1898 more men were engaged in sell
ing liquor in Alaska, there were more
saloons and more liquor sold in Alas
ka than at any time since, while law
lessness reigned supreme and “Soapy"
Smith was Alaska's most noted citi
zen. No revenue accrued to munici
palities or to the government from
the sale of liquor In Alaska in the
“Prohibition” days, and the school
system of Alaska and the municipal
improvements in the Alaska of then
were mostly notable for their absence.
Then came the license system and
government control of liquor selling,
lawlessness, disappeared, and our
towns began to grow and improve and
our school system came into being
and has progressed to a point where
we can point to our school system with
pride.
THEY PAID A THIRD.
A safe consideration of the revenues
of ANY MUNICIPALITY IN ALASKA
is that ONE-THIRD of the total reve
nues of a city are derived from liquor
licenses. At LEAST one-third ofHhe
revenues of ANY municipality in Alas
ka go for school purposes or fire pro
tection — the proportion varies, but
the THIRD estimate is a fair one, and
you cut out a THIRD of the revenues
of your municipality, WITHOUT RE
DUCING THE VISIRLK SUPPLY OE
LIQUOR IN THAT MUNICIPALITY.
Where men pay $1,000 a year to sell
liquor, and are governed and restrict
ed in their business by the federal
and municipal authorities, CUT OUT
THE LICENSE and twice as many
men will be selling liquor in the same
town, without restrictions or license,
and lawlessness results and harm is
done more than good. As it is today,
UNDER LICENSE all the federal ma
chinery can be used to police the
Anchorage camp — with this protec
tion they catch and punish a fraction
of the number of “bootleggers," but
that’s all. Under "Prohibition” the
bootlegger catchers will not be in
creased, but the territory they must
patrol will be increased an hundred
fold, and their effectiveness reduced
accordingly. So long as men want
liquor it will bo Bold. NOWHERE
ELSE ON EARTH are the opportuni
ties for smuggling so great or the dan
ger of detection so small or the pro
fits so great or the field so wide as
along the Alaska coast. “Prohibition"
prohibits NOWHERE, never did, never
will, and it COULD prohibit less in
Aluska than in any of the states of
the Union — could ONLY do that.
Therefore, you have no reasonable rea
son to expect from Prohibition in
Alaska anything but a reduction of the
revenues of your municipalities and
a consequent inefficiency in schools
and fire protection. That is ALL
"Prohibition" can gain for you. You
can put your schools and your fire
department and your municipal im
provement system out of business by
voting for "Prohibition” and reducing
your revenues a third, but you CAN’T
put the whiskey seller out of business
iu Alaska by "Prohibition," you
COULDN’T when ALASKA WAS
PROHIBITION AND YOU NEVER
CAN BY MAKING ALASKA “PRO
HIBITION,” and you know it, if you
stop to consider the question dispas
sionately.
IT’8 NOT A REFORM.
"Prohibition” is not a reform —
Temperance is, but Prohibition is not,
for “Prohibition" is the EXTREME of
Temperance, Just as chronic drunken
ness is the extreme of the liquor traf
fic; common or low-down drunken
ness logically stands in the same rela
tion to Temperance that Prohibition
does. You cannot reform man by law.
any more than you can legislate man
into success. EVERY reform must
COME FROM WITHIN, from (he man
himself, and not through the power
and efforts of strangers who do not
know the man to lie reformed, heir
none of the expense or annoyance if
the “reform" doesn’t “take," and who
try to reform their brother man with
an axe. They may restrict his oppor
tunities to commit what they con
ceive to he a sin. hut they cannot pre
vent his sinning whenever the oppor
tunity offers — wherever tin' price
is, the opportunity to sin will he hang
ing around. Every man has the right
to eat. drink or wear that which ho
wishes to, so long as he does not in
terfere with the rights of another
man. and it is human nature for man
to seek to exercise that right at will
Puritan legislation lias been -< 1
since and before America was dis
covered, and Its primary results have
been to depopulate the territory where
such legislation was working. Tim
men who form Ihe greater part of the
population of Alaska are the men whe
have left their Old Home Camps n
corne where PTOdinr faniulem
j thought and action is permitted men
I Not that they wish to shock society
! <>t be great and unrestricted criminals,
I hut that they wish to he FREE men,
I allowed to eat, drink and wear that
| which they wish to, atto worship God
: after their own fashion, rather than
after some man made law of creed or
! fashion. When you begin to make
j laws which restrict the personal lib
j erties of Alaskans, you start in to
make Alaska an undesirable place of
residence to those men, and they tic
gin to move out. Alaskans are law
abiding, and will keep any law that
appeals to their beliefs in right and
justice. Rut puss laws that appear to
them to he wrong and unjust anH en
tirely unnecessary, and they will not
start a riot or a rule of law lessness
they will go elsewhere and help build
up other communities, whore personal
freedom is less restricted.
DOWN THE COAST.
Washington and Oregon hnv tried
prohibition all this year, and see the
result. Whiskey flows like water in
Seattle and lawlessness reigns su
preme there. The police catch a lot
of wrongdoers, but only a fraction of
‘hose engegad in breaking the laws,
and the result Is chaos. Property
values have depreciated considerably,
rents have been lowered and taxation
has Increased. They have paid an
awful price for the experiment, but
it has been a success in no way — it
would be even less a success in Alas
ka, and vastly more costly and deplor
able.
WHY VOTE WET?
Seriously, there Isn't a chance of
“Prohibition" carrying in Alaska on
November 7. There never was a
chance. When under the federal court
ruling every vote NOT CAST is count
ed as against licensing liquor shops,
municipalities wherein such elections
are held GO WET, what chance GAN
there lie that when only the votes cast
are counted any such municipality
will vote DRY? Not a reasonable
chance on earth. The advocates of
hotter iu'lwuklu mit<i ffiuniclpali
ties have no need to fear the result
of the Prohibition vote on November
7, for it will not be sufficient to carry
the question in tho territory — they
have only to fear that the Prohibition
vote will be of such importance that
our amateur legislature will feel con
strained to allow the purists to bring
the question up, year after year, and
TO*8"
keep our territory and the system of
business disturbed and disrupted year
after year, and always threatened by
the pursists who wish to reform you
without first having reformed them
selves in any manner worth while.
Also this latitude granted the purists
is expensive to municipality and terri
tory alike — it costs money, and does
not do any good.
PROHIBITION OFFERS NO
SOURCE OF REVENUE TO RE
PEACE THE REVENUES IT WOTTED
DESTROY, but continues to ask you
to destroy your legal and usual and
natural revenues derived under the
accepted system of United States gov
ernment, which has endured 140 years
without an attempt from within (from
ANY administration) to change the
system. Therefore, ttie way to kill
this foolish movement is to VOTE IT
DOWN; to vote wet so overwhelming
ly that there will be no excuse for
simple minded legislators to pay fur
ther attention to the importunities of
women from Seattle or she-men from
I Alaska who wish to make their fellow
i men purer by taking away from them
! something wliii h the she-men never
had an inelination or desire to use.
i M.SO, it will he good business for
each muitieiirititv o. i.-vii „
vote for a member of the legislature
who would lie apt to he so Influenced.
When a man is so weak that he is
alrnld to say ".Vo" to some female
'ubhyist, he is a dangerous man to
j send to Juneau, where female lobby
! ists congregate.
DON'T TAX YOURSELVES.
The only wav you can replace the
one third of your revenues that Pro
hibition would destroy is by DIRECT
| TAXATION. Your legal limit is 2
per cent of valuation, and that valu
ation today is upon your property at
about a third of its highest value. You
can't raise the rate of taxation, hut
you CAN RAISE THE V VEUATION.
and that would have to he done. The
valuation of your property would have
to lie doubled, and the 2 per cent limit
of taxation ;v e -ed thereon. Your
tiixes personally would he doubled. Is
there any reason why vour property
should lie double taxed at this time?
Do you wish to pay that price for the
experiment of "Prohibition," when you
know that it would NOT PE an expert
meat ill Alaska, where it has been
tried and where it failed so miser
ably? Rest a sured, if you vote ‘‘Pro
hiliition" on yourself, your TAXES
Wll.E HAVE TO HE DOPBEED, fot
the majority of the Prohibitionists ir
Alaska, as in YOUR community, pax
little or no taxes and own little nl
NO r'>il estate. You know that, am
vou will appreciate it if you consider
who are the Prohibition workers ir
i vour town, then look at the tax roll
! where their name is probably noi
■ written. If you put in with them and
allow them to do this, you will pa>
twice as much taxes ns yon pay today
j imt you cannot blame them for it, fot
j it will tie your own fault.
WHERE ARE THE UNFIT?
Take a mental census of Your Own
Home Town. Who ARE the drunkards
and how many of them are there?
, Are they numerous? Probably (eer
1 tainlvt not. Are there any who have
tut*' as a result of their drinking? Arc
(there any who are hurting others by
their drinking? The "Prohibition” ar
guments are not built for Alaska and
I don't apply here; besides, they are
i not half true, anyway. They are pre
pared to catch and fool and scare wo
men and children and weak minded
men. You can't protect the man who
hasn't the moral courage to let drink
alone, and you haven’t the right to
deny men who have moral courage
the right to satisfy their appetites to
prevent some weak minded man from
.exercising ills appetite — you can
not send all the honest men of the
world to jail to protect the dishonest
ones the opposite is the logical wav.
NO WAY OUT.
Argue as you will; beg the question
and smother it in language and side
issues and imaginary and theoretical
i platitudes, and you must come hack
to brass tacks every time — vote for
Prohibition and you cut out a third of
your civic revenues and double the
taxation upon your own realty hold
ings. Is a vote for a theory, and a
wormy theory at that, worth the
price? You w ill he COM PEI-LED to
pay the price if you vote that way.
Are you w illing to pay such a price
for something not worth while, and
in which if successful that which you
vote for will be a menace and a dis
tinct and never-ending annoyance and
j crime to your community?
If you wish to close your schools
and wipe out your fire protection vote
dry — unless you pay double the taxes
you pay now, that will be the result
of Prohibition in your town.
if yon believe the town can keep
up the schools and other municipal
expenses without the $7,000 paid by
the saloons, vote dry. If you believe
that the $7,000 now paid by the sa
loons wilt be irremediably lost to the
city without hope of replacement by
local taxation then vote wet. It Is
not a question of anything but fin
ances, this campaign.
CONDITIONS HERE
AND SEATTLE
The "Dry Forces” in Juneau in their
advertising matter are quoting the
cd'tor of the Seattle Times in an ef
fort to refute tlie contention of the
K tii ire that an intolerable condition !
of liv, le'-sncs would res sit from any*
attempt to enforce prohibition in Alas- !
ka until this territory secures govern
mental machinery that would place
crime preventing powers behind the
law. They quote excerpts from an ar
tirle signed by <’. B. Blethen, which
I appeared in the Seattle Times of Oc
tober lit. to justify their position. The
excerpts contain those portions of Mr.
Blethen's letter in which he expresses
the opinion that the general results
of the Washington law have improved
old conditions.
However, this same article from the
pen of Mr. Blethen, considered as a
whole, completely justifies the posi
tion of The Empire.
To start with, the state of Washing
ton has not prohibition. The law in
that state does not contemplate pro
hibition. It permits anybody to pur
chase liquor in limited quantities by
taking out permits to do that. Mr.
Blethen contends that the permit sys
tem is not broad enough, that It is so
restricted that it does not “PERMIT
OF THE IMPORTATION OF
ENOUGH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
1 TO TAKE AWAY THE INCENTIVE
| TO BREAK THE LAW." Therefore,
The Times Is urging the adoption of
initiative measures that will permit
the manufacture of liquor in the state
which contains not to exceed four per
cent of alcohol, and to permit the sale
of such liquors at regulated stores and
their use in public dining rooms.
Mr. Blethen’s article referred to
contains the following, in addition to
what appears in the “Dry" advertis
ing matter:
“So far as The Times and its edi
labor, first, to keep the saloon from
returning, and second, in the general
cause of temperance. But— the word
'temperance' is here used AND NOT
(‘Prohibition’).
’’When the present liquor law was
framed great care was taken to make
the measure one expressing temper
ance rather than prohibition. Provi
sions wore more or less carefully
thought out under which reasonable
quantities of liquor could ho secured
for home consumption,
"The framers of the law thought
they were thus providing against the
bulk of probable bootlegging and gen
eral illicit handling of liquor. They
thought they had so framed the law
that no such gigantic series of crim
inal rings would grow out of the na
tural desire of certain men to get the
alcohol they craved, as has sprung
into existence in Seattle.
"Their failure to accomplish this
purpose is well exemplified here in
this city The permit system was too
constricting to permit of the impor
tation of enough alcoholic beverages
to take away the incentive to break
the law.
“The result was inevitable. It fell
to the city administration and its po
lice force to determine whether the
law should he enforced honestly or
not. The events of the past week
speak for themselves.
“I haven’t the slightest idea that
it will have a chance at the polls. The
majority of tho people of (he state
are so thoroughly satisfied with our
liquor law they wouldn't change any
part of ft for anything in the world.
That doesn't change my right to my
private opinion that '24' (inititative
measure referred to), would prevent
to a considerable degree the INCEN
TIVE that exists for corrupt men to
form conspiracies to break the law,
that an unsatisfied demand may he
met."
The Washington law permits every
man or woman over the age of 21
years to purchase four and a half gal
lons of whiskey and 54 gallons of beer
a year. Mr. Hlethen says this Is not
enough to take away the incentive to
break the law, therefore a "frightful
condition" of crime exists, and The
Times urges that the law he made
more liberal.
Now, if a law such as that in the
state of Washington, permitting the
use of practically five gallons of alco
holic beverages a month for every
adult, is not libera! enough to destroy
the incentive to commit crime to such
an extent that it has become a public
scandal and is overtaxing the full
strength of the city, county and state
machinery, what could be expect in
Alaska under total prohibition and
practically no governmental tnachln
ery at all for Its enforcement?
There is one more important feature
with the situation in Alaska that does
not apply at Seattle: The municipal
authorities of Alaska have no power
to levy taxes or otherwise provide for1
i the revenues that would be lost with,
the introduction of prohibition in the
territory.
Does it require any argument t.
make the situation pi in to the prar
tleal men and women of Alaska? Doe:
It require any imagination to see thi
e nnival i f l.i'.vle:. at that would foi
low the adoption of a prohibition law
here at this time? Does it need mori
than a hare statement of the facts t(
demonstrate that Alaska should pro
ceed with her regulated liquor traffit
until ucl ime as she has settled the
fun<’ °t 1 governmental problems
lhal uf it her people?—Juneau
Umpire.
♦
SOME INVENTION. THIS.
Following Is another comment on
farmers making liquor at home, a
practice which enables many of them
to laugh at the prohibition laws. The
Minneapolis Tribune says
"The fact that Oregon has gone dry
seems to have had a stimulating ef
fect upon the inventive genius of her
people, if we are to credit the report
in the reliable New York Times that
a Clackamas farmer has discovered
that it is possible to make practically
pure alcohol by running apple elder
through a cream separator. Wouldn't
it be a curious development if the
cream separator of the Hood river ap
ple country should become a more
serious menace to the intern i! revenue
! of !hf> r*mintrv thiin thn nmirnfil -till
of Kentucky?"
THEY SIGH FOR CIDER.
Sinre the states of Washington ami
Oregon went “dry,” according to the
Round-Up (Montana) Record, their
citizens hove developed a frightf”!
thirst fnr hard cider. The Record savs;
"Cider wanted, and wanted at once
and hadlv,' is the cry that has come
from Washington and Oregon to local
railroads from their representatives in
those two states A whole ea load is
needed at nnee and more later.
"It is claimed that since both states
went 'dry the manufacture of 'hard
I eider.' consistin ’ of the old f. shinned
cider that was placed on the Sunday
table in the good old days bad; on the
farm, with something that gives a sen
sation of a kick,' has gone ahead by
leaps and bounds and practically
I every quart of eider in the two states
has been bought up for ‘remodeling ' ”
♦
Anti prohibitionists say that the fall
^ ure of former Representative Rieh
I mornl Pearson Hobson to secure the
I Democratic nomination for congress
I in Alabama, coupled with the defeat
of William J. Bryan for delegate at
large to the national convention, and
the downfall of his brother. Charles
I Ifrvan, who aspired to the Nebraska
I gubernatorial nomination, is proof that
public sentiment 1ms turned against
j the “drvs." Hobson was the official
mouthpiece of the Anti Saloon League
j while in congress. It was ho who in
< * —— -J -] »t . . « < . ••
amendment into that body.
Throughout the entire United States
, the leading phase of the “wet" and
'dry” question discussed by the edi
j torial writers in newspapers is the
I tremendous defeat of the prohibition
forces in Vermont.
Numerous newspapers venture the
opinion that the downfall of prohibi
tion in the Green Mountain state is
a forerunner of the breaking of the
“dry” wave, and a positive indication
that the sentiment of the American
l people is against national prohibition.
Some writers declare that Vermont
ers east their ballots after careful con
sideration of the present status of the
| present nineteen "dry" (?) states. It
is stated that inasmuch as “booOeg
j gers," "moonshining" and the opera
tion of “blind tigers" and "blind pigs”
. in prohibition territory enable citizens
to beat the “dry” law, there wasn't
much use in putting a prohibition law
that does not prohibit on the statute
books.
. « _
Alaska WAS STRICTLY PROHini
TION until the close of 1898. Not a
dollar came to our schools or our mu
nicipalities from the sale of liquor, and
as a result our schools were not worth
mentioning and our municipalities the
same — in spite of this there were
AS MANY SALOON'S THEN AND
MORE LIQUOR DRANK IN ALASK V
Til \N THERE IS TODAY. The liquor
traffic was more remunerative in that
no taxation attended the sale of li
quor — simply a greater risk which
the get-rich-quick whiskey seller is al
ways ready to take. Prohibition didn't
prohibit in Alaska when ii was work
ing here, and doesn't prohibit ANY
WHERE — it simply destroys what
is considered today a legitimate reve
nue and which revenue goes to schools
and municipalities, and gives nothing
but an alleged protection against li
quor which is not one whit stronger
than an individual's respect for the
command, "Thou shall not drink."