Rensselaer Republican, Volume 13, Number 40, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 June 1881 — How Prohibition Works in Kansas. [ARTICLE]

How Prohibition Works in Kansas.

Topeka Letter to the Boston Herald. In many places there is no pretense at observing the law. Among these are Dodge City, a great center of the cattle trade. About all the councilmen and policemen run saloons; their enforcement of the law may be imagined. Indeed, it would not be safe for them, even were they so inclined. Dodge City is the roughest town in the state, and should a cow boy enter a saloon and be offered lemonade when he calls for whisky, his reply would be apt to be a fdstol shot. The law is not regarded n the Missouri river towns, and in Leavenworth there is talk of a com-

promise between the prohibitionists and the liberals, so as to allow the sale of beer and light wines. lowa has a prohibitory constitutional amendment, like Kansas, but' the law interpreting it allows the sale of beer ana native wines. [Note: This is an error. lowa has no prohib tory clause in its constitution. Such an amendment is pending. We have a prohibitory law.—Ed. ’ Hawkeye.} Among rhe curiosities of liquor legislation Is the Oregon law, which, for s6.licenses men to drink. The amendment to the constitution wa only adopted by a majority of seven thousand. It was voted upon at the November election, and there were about thirty-live thousand who voted for candidates, but did not vote upon the amendment. The ballots were prepared in a manner legal in Kansas, but of questionable propriety so that many votes, especially those who could not read, were not clear as to how they were voting. It was claimed by able lawyers that under these circumstances the amendment was not legally adopted, but the supreme court decided otherwise. *

The legislature of this last winter, therefore, passed the prohibitory law to carry the amendment into effect. Many were averse to the law; but, being politicians, were dragooned into compliance. When the opposition found the prohibitionists were bound to go to extremes, many ostensibly became converted and bent their energies to fasten the strictest provisions upon the bill in order to make it thoroughly ridiculous, lhe radicals were not bright enough to see the game until it was too late. The chief diversion among the legislators during the winter was to spend their evenings inthe bar-room or over their toddies in

their rooms at the hotels, “fixing up the temperance bill.’* “We’ve got ’em now,” gleefully said one irreverent legislator, at the dose of one evening’s work; “we’ve busted the whole d—d communion service!” The ex remists saw their error at the very eloee of the session, and tried to pass a supplementary bill, allowing tne use of wine at the communion, out the others resisted all attempt at modifying its severity. A provision of the bill has now been discovered that caps the climax. That is, that one of the fortifying sections provides for whoever uses intoxicating liquors a penalty as great as for its sale. The strict encouragement of this might supply the deficiency in revenue to the treasuries caused by the loss of the income from licenses, a loss which is already loudly lamented. The brewers and distillers will test in the United States courts the constitutionality of a measure which destroys their property, the citizens of every state being guaranteed the enjoyment of life, liberty and property. Should their business in this way be destroyed, why, it is asked, would not a more ascetic legislature conceiving that coflee, tea and tobacco were poisonous, also have the right to prohibit traffic in the same and destroy all business therein invested and concerned ? »