Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1874-05-28
Washington. May "a, 1874.



humanity, for us to do so. For instance,
the last weeks Register contains an edito-
rial, which we suppose the writer designed |
as a reply to an article of ours in the HER
AID of the previous week, in relation to |
the repeal Of the Ale and Beer ordinance |
and the passage Of an ordinance that has
no validity in it; and which we charge was
done for the purpose Of deceiVing the peo-
pie, or through the grOssest ignor g ce Of
its total barrenness Of legal force.
In our article we said nothing about the
license question; our article had reference
wholly to the repeal of the Ale and Beer
ordinance, and the miserable humbug OF
thing the council have adopted as a substi-
tute for the Ale and Beer ordinance. Yet,
the editors Of the Register in their article,
with their characteristic unfairness, seek
to avert the real issue for the barren pur-
pose Of sustaining a notorious bad cause.
For instance, the editors say the question
decided at the election ION the 9th of April
was, license or prohibition, and the ticket
in favor of license was elected by major
ity of two to one; perhaps this was adding
insult to injury" What we said had no
reference to the result Of the election
whatever, and the effort Of the editors to
apply our remarks to the result of the
vote of the people is simply beggarly at
tempt to evade the issue and put US in a
false position. Again, we deny the truth
Of the statement of the Register, that "the
license ticket was elected by a majority of
two to One."
We were present at the meeting at City
Hall when the citizens ticket referred to
was formed and their platform adopted; the
ticket which the Register denOminates the
license ticket; and we state positively, that
neither in that meeting nor in their plat
form, which we published for reference,
was there a word said about the repeal of
the Ale and Beer ordinance, the issue they
made was license, and annexed we publish
their platform, from which it will be seen
that license, and not repeal, was the issue
they made. Here it is;
awe belieye in doing the most good for
the greatest number. We are strong ad
W0C0fe8 Oh law anu OGubEs we aES HALuA
and sincere friends of temperance in all
things-temperance in opinions and actions
as well as in eating and drinking; and hail
with delight the suppression of the many
Low haunts Of vice and corruption that in
tested our town. We acknowledge and
proudly recognize the refining influence
that woman exercises over the actions of
man; but we are restrained by experience
70 regard all measures of local nature as
shOPt-liTed in their results, as long as tho
General Government sanctions the impor-
tatiOn, manufacture and sale Of liquors.
Fully cognizant Of the diversity Of opin-
ions that exists In regard to prohibition
and after mature reflection, we proclaim
ourselves strongly in favor Of judicious
applied license law; believing that the
greater evils of which we complain will be
obviatsd by the strict enforcement of its
requirements, while local sentiment viii
restrain the lesser ones"
Upon this platform they nominated thei
ticket, which, for cOuRciImen, resulted a
follows;
John Miser (elected) 20.
]. A. Williams (elected) 81
j. IN. Lease (eIected) - ~
Daniel Mclean Zz
A. O. johnson - ~
r. L. AitterhOuse "a
The first three were on the license tick
ct, the last three on the temperance ticke
Now we would like to know by whs
rule of arithmetic our Deighbors of tn
Register can cypher ont majority {
"Two TO ONE IN FAVOR OF THE LICENSE TICE
ET?''
Before closing this article we must nc
tice this fact, that in the above quotation
from the proceedings of the citizens meet
ing at City Hall, the people declared
themselves in favor of temperance; an
further, that they hailed with delight, tn
suppression of the many low haunts {
vice that infested our town." &c. We ca
especial attention to their declared prime
pies, as quoted above. Against these dee
lArations we have never said one word.-
But, supposing these to be the true sent
msnts of the meeting at City Hall, no
has the council of our town carried out tf
views and wishes of that meeting?
course, when they declared in favor
license, they declared in favor of VIII
they had no power to grant. The counC
had no power to grant license Of any kiI
ID cell intoxicating liquors, and the only T
sGraining power the council had was und
the provisions of the then existing A
and Beer ordinance; and in the face Of t
dsclara ton Of the citizens meeting at Ci
Hall, that they shall with delight the su
precision Of the many low hannts Of vi
and corruption that INFESTED our town
and their beautiful acknowledgment of t
refining influence that woman exercise 81
instead Of retaining the legal restrictio
they had over these Glow haunts Of vi
and corruption that infested our town." !
repeat what We said in our former artic
that with indecent haste" they repeal
the only law the council had the power
pass that conld have restraining influen
upon these miserable sinks of drunkenne
and corruption; and to-day, what is the
sult of this hnty action Of the counc
Every member Of the council, who vot
for the repeal, whether he designed it
not, voted indirectly if not directly, for
Ee-establishmsnt Of old ones and the
tablishment Of new tippling houses q
houses OF puDhc resort LOT uppHng p
poses in our town. Is this what the c
GEMS meeting at City Hall meant VII
they declsred themselves in favor of to
perAnce in all things, and when at Il
meeting they 'hGiled with delight the 81
preston Of the many low haunts of v
and corruption that infested our tow
we cannot think so, and must conclu
4ha,s. fore, that the council have misrep
santad 4. o spirit and intention Of that me
Jing.