Transcript
Joyceland Vineyard
T. L. Joyce, Proprietor
Manufacturer of
Florida Orange and Grape Wines
Ocoee, Orange County, Fla., 6 April 1908
To His Excellency
N. B. Broward
Governor of Florida
Dear Sir,
Would you kindly give the enclosed clipping your best attention, it was published in the Farmer and Fruit Grower and Semi-Weekly Times Union of Jacksonville
We would be gladto have you use your influence in recordance therewith in the interest of the other wine growers of the State of Florida and myself. Our business has been taken away from us and as the matter stands we are without means of support not being able to utilise the produce of our vineyards. We have put our capital and years of labor in our work and are now practically ruined
I am yours truly
T. J. Joyce
Dear Editor: Below I send you a letter which was printed in the Farmer and Fruit Grower and Semi-Weekly Times-Union of February 28th. Would be glad to have you reproduce this letter in your paper. If not asking too much, would be pleased to receive copy of paper containing article.
----
Prohibition, from the Point of View of a Grower of Wine Grapes.
Editor Farmer and Fruit Grower: We can easily understand fanaticism in a heathen country, but scarcely so in the United States, yet a large portion of its inhabitants have gone insane over prohibition, which, needless to say, does not prohibit, but rather creates a desire, it being a well known fact that it is human nature to want what we are told we must not have. Statistics show that the consumption of whiskey, in every case, where a place has gone "dry," has increased on an average of over 50 per cent. Prohibitionists glory when they have succeeded in voting a "dry." They see no saloons, and consider in their egotistical way that they have put a stop to drinking. Take Orange county for an example: look at the thousands of gallons of whiskey that has come in since it went "dry;" look at the thousands of dollars that went went [sic] out of Orlando alone during Christmas week. The express offices were full to overflowing. Prohibition indeed! When the day of reckoning comes, prohibitionists will have much to answer for. A place is "dry," a 10-cent drink cannot be had--result, an order is sent for a jug, and dollars are spent in place of cents; how about prohibition?
The following is quoted from the New York Tri-Weekly Tribune of Feb. 5, 1908:
Miss Cousins, lawyer, lecturer, woman suffragist and at once time United States [marshal], says: "All women in the Woman's Christian Temperance Union are a narrow-minded lot."
Miss Cousins does not approve of the wave of prohibition that is sweeping over the country, and Saturday she appeared before a sub-committee of the senate to argue against the proposed Tillman bill, which would prohibit the shipment of liquors into prohibition states by express companies.
"Russia itself," she told the committee, cannot duplicate such an abridgement of personal privileges as these women propose. The women and preachers have gone mad over the whole thing. Prohibition does not prohibit. It encourages secret vices, fraud and perjury. We need not prohibit, but regulate, saloons more on the Bishop Potter plan, the club houses of the poor, where no man is allowed to over-drink.
Of course parents and school teachers should regulate what a child may eat or drink, but by what right has man or woman to dictate as to what may or may not be consumed by their fellow man? To do so is degrading to the human race, and would not be tolerated for a moment in any other country.
I am an old man, have lived in Europe, Asia and Africa, and in no one of the many places I have been in could such an absurd thing as local option exist. In all these places a man has his individual rights, which one does not get here. Statistics again show that the consumption of alcoholic drink in America has increased during the last few years over 50 per cent, although at the present time half the population of America are living in "dry" places.
What is wanted is not prohibition, but to raise the "morale" of the people. Let them see and understand that to drink too much is disgraceful, and not to be tolerated by their friends and acquaintances. In this way we will do good--to nag and prohibit can only do harm.
I may mention that although I am myself an abstainer, I have always had wine on my table, so that our family of five sons and three daughters could at any time help themselves. The result is they are all sober, honest and straightforward citizens.
By a special Florida state law wine may be made and sold. On the good faith of this law, we wine makers entered into the business and invested our capital in raising vineyards, building wine houses, etc. We are now informed by the state solicitor that we are prohibited from selling our wine in a "dry" state. This puts an end to our labor, and practically robs us of our property. A citizen of Tangerine was fined in Orlando $100 and costs for selling wine of his own manufacture, not knowing it was against the law.
This may be the "law," and it may or may not be constitutional, but, to me, it certainly does not seem to be justice, and it is inconceivable that such a state of affairs can possibly exist in the United States of America. We enter into a legitimate business in conformity with a state law of Florida. If the state repudiates its own laws by including our industry in "local option," is it justice that we should suffer? Some of us are old men, who have put their all in this business on the good faith of a state law. Who is to compensate us, not only for the loss of our property, but for the loss of years of labor? We have proved that this state can produce wine of an excellent quality, which industry would have done much to build up this state.
I exhibited my wines at the State State Fair at Tampa in 1905 and 1906, and obtained two diplomas and five highest awards.
I have interviewed a number of men who voted "dry" in this last election in Orange county. They all say they had no idea that by so doing they were prohibiting us wine growers from selling our wine. In many cases they have told me they have had to send off and get wine, but that they preferred the domestic wines they had been in the habit of using. One of these "dry" men told me that it was great injustice to prevent our selling our own produce. He said they might just as well prevent him from selling his hogs. Such is the sentiment of the people of this section who voted "dry." This speaks for itself. Whiskey comes into Orange county by the thousands of gallons, and yet we wine growers are prohibited from selling our own produce.
I would not make my protest so forcibly if prohibition actually caused the restraint in the use of liquors of those voting a "dry" ticket, when by so doing it excluded them from the indulgence of same. But an individual voting "dry," and possibly being one of the greatest of these fanatics, is at liberty to, and often does, indulge in the use of intoxicants.
Should the Tillman bill pass and be proved constitutional, I rather fancy prohibition will die a natural death, there being such a large percentage of people who vote "dry," but who would decidedly and speedily change their tactics if they were deprived of their "little brown jug."
T. L. Joyce.
President of the Florida Wine Growers' Association.
Ocoee, Florida.
----
Ricochet Print, Winter Garden, Fla.
Listen: The Bluegrass & Old-Time Program
