The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1873-05-29
The poclripe Of Local option.

The Doctrine of Local Option
from tho Chicago TrLbune.)
Among the numerous legislative rene
dies suggested Tor the evil OF intemper.
suce Is that known as Local Option"
which prevails In Pennsylvania. 1t re-
iers the question Of prohibition to every
town or city to decide for itself, Tree trai-
DC in liquor or prohibition following the
malOrity Of lcgel votes cast 10 favor oil
uue or The other. To those who are &C.
customed to regard the minority US inlal.
llbly right, or even those who believe that
tue ruling sentiment Oi the majority must
regulate the personal conduct, habits, and
preferences Of the minority, this solution
ni the temperance question will especially
recommend itself. It has, indeed, many
advantages over prohibition By State
vote, since the communities that are thus
constrained according 10 one rule in the
use of stimulants are smaller, and those
who feel that their personal liberty Is IN
warranIably inlerlercd with may choose
more cungcnial residence with less in.
convenience, expense, and discomfort.
Tie objections to the system are the same
AZ these which may be urged to I'LL pro-
hibitury legislation, as limiting the exer'
Else Of personal freedom in the use OF slim.
ul4nts In manner not demanded by the
welfare Of society, and shaped rather upon
tue prcjudiccs Of the majority than the
necessities Of a police regulation. In
Pennsylvania, the validity oil the law was
contested on the ground that the Legis-
4ture, in passing Il, had virtually dele
gated the law.making power, which 1t
had no right to do. The Supreme Court
held, however, that this was not the case,
aud the law remains with the distinction
Vi producing the most holly contested 10
cal elections which the people have ever
had.
The New York Legislature recently
passed Local. Option bill, modelled alter
Tue Pennsylvania law, but Gov. Dix We
lued il. The reasons which lie has given
OE Withholding his assent are Of consider.
able interest Hc does not doubt that in.
temperance is the source oil u large pro-
portion oil the crime, pauperism, and mis-.
cry OF the community; he expresses him
self in favor oil any plan calculated 10
check intemperanCC; and he believes in
the right Of the people TO regulate their
local affairs In such manner aa they deem
TO be for their welfare. But he believes
that the Local.0ptiOn bill Is Limitation
Of their right 10 do this. The Supreme
Court of New York has held that ale,
beer, and cider are TO be Classed with in
tuxIcating drinks, and, therefore, under
the Local Option bill, the people would
have to vote Tor the prohibition Of ale,
beer, and cider II they desired to prohibit
the sale of whisky, brandy, and other al
COhOliC drinks. Gov. Dix points out that
there is very large and growing class Of
people who believe that ale, beer, and CT.
der ure rather safeguards agNinst the vice
o. iDlempcrance than promoters Of 1t. lie
evidently believes 80 himself, though he
does not cay go. But he holds that the
necessary prohibition OF these malt
drinks in community which desired to
prohibit the sale oil spirituOus liquors con.
strains tree expression OF opinion at the
polls. 1t might be that those who would
yotelor prohibiting the sale Of alcoholic
drinks, il gle, beer, and cider could be cx'
empted, would refuse TO vote for pro-
hibiled that should include these drinks.
Gov. Dix does not say that the Legisla-
turc ought 10 make All exception In favor
Of ale, beer, and cider, but he says that
the law should have been framed In such
amanner as to leave each community
Tree 10 decide whether 1t would prohibit
the sale Of spirituous liquors alone, and
tolerate malt drinks, or prohibit them all,
or refuse 10 prohibit any Of them. There
were other points Of objection which
10, NJ ,,,aJn ~ tha hill lint fhia 10 thu
only one OF general interest
When the bill first passed the New
York Legislature, it received Oj votes in
favor Of Il. When the vote was taken on
passing 1t over the Governors veto, It re.
ceived but 80 votes. This difference
would indicate that Gov. Dix's reasoning
had made a favorable impression on
part Of the Legislature, since the ultra
incorporating temperance men de-
uOunCed his action and made the fight,
after the veto, in order to have their rec
ord as strong as possible. Gov. Dix went
80 far rs TO say that the bill, as 1t passed,
WAS more likely TO promote the evils II
intended to check, than to remove them.
This feature OF the case, outside Of all
reference TO the doctrine Of Local Options,
should commend itself to the attention OF
everybody who is giving any considera-
lion 10 the policy Of enforced temperance.
The question Is whether the general and
unrestricted use Of ale, beer, cider and
nalive wines (Which will not intoxica,e
unless, as Gov Dix says, they are taken
III uncomfortable QuantiIes) is not more
likely to limit the vice Of intemperance
than il the crusade against spirituous liq.
nors is made to prohibit them also This
question Is Of importance whether there
san issue OF prohibition or not. II ale,
beer, ciler and native wines may be made
active temperance agents by displaclng
the common American habit Of taking
strong drinks, as many people are coming
to believe who would not formerly listen
to such doctrine, then It Is certain that
there should be no political, legislative or
social movement against these agencies.
This Is about what Gov Dix meant In
bis veto OF the Local Option bill as II was
passed