CHAPTER III

THE SALOON AS A CAUSE

The intelligent discussion of any question requires that the particular proposition to be dealt with shall be clearly defined; otherwise the writer may be drawn into a consideration of irrelevant matters.

The temperance question is a very comprehensive subject, but it is the purpose of the writer to deal with only one phase of the subject-the saloon. There is a vast difference between the drink saloon of a community and the drink habit of an individual. The saloon is a public institution, while the drink habit is an element of individual character, but, yet, the two are necessarily inseparable. The immoral, the debasing, the degrading and pauperizing results of the drink habit are universally known and recognized, and an enlightened public conscience must treat these deplorable results as the natural effects of a precedent, producing cause.

The drink saloon creates, develops and produces the drink habit, and is, therefore, the responsible cause of all the evils flowing from the latter. The drink saloon is a cause, and the evil results of the drink habit are its natural offspring. It is the purpose of the writer to concentrate the attention of the reader upon the cause-the mother.

No proposition of reason is clearer and truer than the statement, "by their fruits ye shall know them," hence the character and legal standing of

the saloon must be determined from an investigation of its natural results. The character of the effect must determine the character of the cause. If the natural effects invite legal sanction and approbation, then the cause is entitled to legal approval, but, if the inherent effects deserve the condemnation of the law, then the law, inevitably, must condemn the cause.

THE SALOON A POISON STORE.

The stock, handled and sold in the drink saloon, to a large degree, determines the character of the institution. The article, handled and sold, is intoxicating liquor. Intoxicating means poisonous. The proper definition of the drink saloon is, therefore, a poison store, and the correct definition of a saloon keeper is a poison seller.

It has been one of the standing arguments of saloon keepers that the drink traffic is legitimate commerce and is, for that reason, entitled to the same standing before the law as the selling of the ordinary necessities of life, such as breadstuffs and clothing.

The distinction is so apparent that the mere statement of the proposition is its own refutation. The commodity, in the one case, ministers to the sustenance, comfort and happiness of man, and, in the other, it feeds his depravity and lures him to idleness, pauperism, vice and crime.

Groundless, as the contention certainly is, courts have been called upon to express an opinion upon

it and have done so. The Supreme Court of South Carolina, in the case of the State ex rel George vs. Aiken, 26 L. R. A. 345, said: “Liquor, in its nature, is dangerous to the morals, good order, health and safety of the people, and is not to be placed upon the same footing with the ordinary commodities of life, such as corn, wheat, cotton, potatoes, etc."

The Supreme Court of Kansas, in the case of Durien vs. State, 80 Pac. 987, said: "The commodity in controversy is intoxicating liquor. The article is one whose moderate use, even, is taken into account by actuaries of insurance companies, and which bars employment in classes of service involving prudent and careful conduct-an article conceded to be fraught with such contagious peril to society, that it occupies a different status before the courts and the legislatures from other kinds of property, and places traffic in it upon a different plane from other kinds of business. It is still the prolific source of disease, misery, pauperism, vice and crime. Its power to weaken, corrupt, debauch and slay human character and human life is not destroyed or impaired because it may be susceptible of some innocent uses, or may be used with propriety on some occasions. The health, morals. peace and safety of the community at large are still threatened."

In the case of Semidt vs. City of Indianapolis, 80 N. E. 632, the Supreme Court of Indiana, declared that the liquor traffic is not a harmless and useful occupation, but an occupation that is hurtful, harmful and pernicious to society.

THE EFFECTS OF THE SALOON ARE NOT CONFINED

TO THE DRINKERS

Another reason that has been urged against the suppression of the saloon, by the law, is the contention that the use of liquor is a matter of the individual taste of the person indulging. In other words, that it is one of the God given rights of man to select his own food and drink, free from governmental interference. This contention, as it applies to the use of intoxicating liquor, as a beverage, has been answered by the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Crowley vs. Christenson, 137 U. S. 86, as follows: "It is urged that, as the liquors are used as a beverage, and the injury following them, if taken in excess, is voluntarily inflicted, and is confined to the party offending, their sale should be without restrictions, the contention being that what a man shall drink, equally with what he shall eat, is not properly matter for legislation.

"There is in this position an assumption of a fact which does not exist, that when the liquors are taken in excess the injuries are confined to the party offending. The injury, it is true, first falls upon him in his health, which the habit undermines ; in his morals, which it weakens; and in the selfabasement which it creates. But, as it leads to neglect of business and waste of property and general demoralization, it affects those who are immediately connected with and dependent upon him."

It is as a cause of evil and pernicious effects to

third parties that the courts justify governmental interference with the saloon.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE SALOON AS A CAUSE

For the purpose of disclosing the extent to which the saloon is regarded as a cause of harmful results to society attention is called to the following: State Senator Mattingly, the high license champion of Indiana, says: "Fully ninety per cent. of all crime may be justly traced to the use of intoxicating liquor."

Governor Durbin's message to the Indiana General Assembly of 1905: "More and more as I have looked into the personnel of the unfortunates who crowd our penal and charitable institutions, I am impressed with the large part sustained by the liquor traffic in recruiting the poor house, the insane hospital, the jail and the penitentiary.”

Governor Hanly, of Indiana: "For three years I have witnessed an unending procession of women. -mothers, daughters and wives-coming with broken hearts and in tears to the executive chamber to plead for clemency for loved ones who have transgressed the law and whose liberty the State has taken away. I have read hundreds of criminal records in my hotel, in my home, in the executive office and in railway trains, and in eighty-five per cent. of the cases the cause can be traced to the excessive use of intoxicating liquors."

Ex-Congressman W. D. Bynum, of the Indianapolis District: "The courts have taken advanced grounds on the liquor question within recent years. They have pronounced it an evil without one