English
22.
Joseph A, Cone.
First Year Special.
Theme #8, Jan. 22, 1895.
Your arguments are fairly well marshaled
but are not supported by a sufficient number of statistics and concrete
illustrations. In one or two places, pointed out in the margins, you make nwarranted
assump-tions which prejudice the reader against your cause. I do not think,
moreover, that ade-quate consideration is given to the arguments against on the other side, and it is
going a long way to say offhand that “what is good for Joe Norway is good for
us.”
Rewrite
W. U. M.
The
Gothenberg System.
Should it be Tried?
The
question of handling intoxicating liquors in Massachusetts as prescribed by the
Gothenberg system, more familiarly known perhaps, as the “Norwegian” bill has been earnestly
agitated by many of the leading philanthropists and temperance reformers throughout the
state. The origin of this system can be told given in a
few words.
Not
many years ago the curse of intemperance had become so great in Norway that a mighty reform was
felt to needed, consequently a small body of her best citizens met to see what could be done to [help to] lessen
the growing evil. They realized that it was no small question to settle, but
after much difficulty they succeeded in
framing and getting passed a bill, the nature provisions of which is are as follows:
That a A certain number of representative temperance
citizens shall form a stock company and take the liquor business into their own
hands, lessening the number of saloons and realizing but five per cent profit
above expenses, on their money invested. These saloons shall be small, plainly
furnished, containing not tables or chairs, where a man may obtain a one glass
of liquor if he insists upon it, misplaced clause >and only one,< within a specified time. The man in charge, who
is a temperance man himself, shall endeavor to dissuade his customer from
taking alcoholic liquor, and offer him something of a harmless nature. No “hail” fellow can be enticed in and “treated,”
and the customer must leave immediately upon receiving his drink; and even this
cannot be procured if he shows the slightest sign of intoxication. To the dispenser
who can show the smallest number of sales shall the greatest credit be
Stilted
inversion given,
and all proceeds over the five per cent before mentioned shall go to the
founding of coffee houses, reading rooms and various other public institutions having
a tendency to draw young men away from the saloon.
This,
then, is an outline of the Norwegian bill, as proposed by our intelligent and
able temperance leaders of Massachusetts.
Shall it be tried? This begs the
question The
deep thinking population cries “yes,” while the careless and ignorant, seconded
by the “old school prohibitionists,” and the uneasy rum seller cries “no.”
Briefly
and clearly as possible, I will endeavor to show why it should be tried.
In
the first place it takes the money making feature out of salon keeping, and
puts the surplus, above the actual expenses, to public good instead
of in the saloon awkward keeper’s
coffers.
Secondly,
the bill provides that the saloon shall be unattractive, both within and
without, and shall not be located within a specified distance of any public
school. This latter fact alone speaks volumes in its favor.
Thirdly,
it has lessened the consumption of liquor in Norway from fourteen quarts to the
individual per annum to six quarts per annum. What does this mean? Simply that
the poor of Norway have over half as much again of their earning for their
homes and bodily comforts as they did under the old system, and what is good
for Norway in this respect, is good
for us. Are you sure of this? It needs proof
Has
this system been tried successfully elsewhere? It has, reports from Sweeden, sp Denmark
and other places go far to prove the value of this plan.
What
would such a bill do for a city like New York, let me ask? It would give Tammany
Hall even a greater throw down
even Ineligant than it
received from the Parkhurst and Lexow elements, for it must be acknowledged that
the corrupt saloon is the main spoke in the Tammany wheel.
This
plan does not apply to places already under the “no” license system; such
places shall remain as they are as long as the people are fortunate enough to
hold them so. In a word, the bill says, “if we must have a liquor traffic in
our midst, let us have it as clean as possible.” It does not make liquor
selling “respectable,” as the opposition falsely accuses us of having tried Not
smooth force
upon the people, it does takes away no man’s “freedom”, as our saloon opponents
piteously cry, but it hastens that long looked for time when humanity shall rise above the
cruel and relentless heel of intemperance,
Metaphor a bit forced and shine forth a blessing to
itself and to its creator.
No comments:
Post a Comment