The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1875-01-01
EsKRIDGR AND LICENSE.


E8KRIDGE AND LICENSE.
We publish q communication
rom Hon. G. v. Eskridge to-day,
which is plea for liquor license,
md more, perhaps, defense of his
'wn course in the Council. Many
'f the people will agree with him
n the statement, that the admins
ration Of the affairs of the city re-
dects little credit on the city govern
ment. We believe We would have |
been Just as happy this year, as a |
community, without the Council, |
especially, as we have been with II. |
How far Mr.. Eskridge can make
the people of the city responsible
for the short comings of its officers
remains to be seen. The most sur
prising thing In the communication
is the statement that the difficulties
arise from the fact that the people
have no policy on the license qnes-
ton. In the language of the noble
progenitor of Dotheboy's hall, "that
Is richness" If ever a people have
had policy on any question, the
people of Emporia have had a poll
cy on this license question. If to-
day all the members of the City
Council voted on the question OF
liquor license as the people of their
respective wards desired they
should vote, there would be no Ii
cense passed. The most notable
case OF direct misrepresentation of
their wishes exists in the case of
the writer of the communication in
question, and now we submit that
it taxes q "cheek," approaching the
sublime to try to shift the effects of
his misrepresentation on the voters
he has fooled. The idea OF an Of
ficer of tho people going back on
their plain instructions to him, and
then accusing them of q lack of pol
icy! We need but to refer to the re-
cords of every election held in the
l city every year, up to a year and a
half or two years ago, to prove thai
the people of Emporia have had g
policy on this liquor question. They
steadily and always, up to that time
voted against license. We do moi
deny but that the public sentiment
in some of the wards has somewhat
changed. But we believe to-day
that a majority of the people of EN-
poria, on a fair expression, are op
posed to license. They have beer
bedeYiled by the wiles of the liquor
seller, and his attorneys, and fooled
BY the double dealing of Council
men until many are tired and sicI
of the business, and do not vote a
all. In the long fight here other
have honestly changed, and beleiv,
Il well guarded license system tn,
best. Had all the officers elected
by the people stood up fair ant
square on this question, as some o
them have, and not adopted thi
subterfuge and that for fOolin!
them, there would have been II,
trouble. But we humbly protes
against laying the charge of tn
short comings of officers at the door
of the people. That is heaping in
suit on injury.
We don't propose now to discus
the license question. 1t has tw,
sides. We believe that what i
wanted more than anything else j
candOr and fair dealing on the par
of some of the officers. For in
stance, Mr.. Eskridge was elected a
an anti-Iicense man. 1t was tn
distinct understanding with man,
voters in his ward that he was OPP
posed to license. Indeed, we hav,
been told that he openly pledged
himself that way. He himself will
not assert that his acts have been il
accordance with such pledges
Since he went into office vote wa
had on the license question, aud hi
ward voted two to one against Ii
cense-a fresh and direct instruc
ton, and yet he Immediately violat
ed that instruction. We submit i
is not just the thing now for him Il
tantalize them with the statemen
that ain respect to this question
members of the Council and city of
ficers will not yield their opinion!
as to what they believe to be tho
best interests of the city" We sub.
NIT, also, that they Qhe officers,
ought to yield their opinions or re.
sign to those they are misrepresent.
ing, and let them elect some one
who will carry out their policy by
complying with their well-known
and oft-repeated instructions. Mr..
Eskridge has perfect right to his
opinion, but is the last man, under
the circumstances, who ought to at
tempt to saddle the evil cOnse-
quences of his uble-deaIing oil
the people, q portion of whom he
has undoubtedly and unprovkedly
"sold out" on this question. That
is the naked truth in the matter.
His article makes the matter worse
than il was before for him. Fair
and square dealing would have saw
ed all the foolishness we have had,
and there would have been no Ii
Oense. Besides this, Mr.. Eskridge
would not to-day be placing the
citizens of the first ward in the false
light of favoring whisky, and then
abusing them for lack of policy.
The GOODNESS of his position, we
rather think, needs no comment.
With what keen sense of GOODNESS
this sentence must strike the public
and the city executive: "The peO-
pie are to blame for the ridiculous
action of the Mayor and some mem
bsrs of the Council." Some mem
bers of the Council! That's good.
1t will be relished by those mem
bers of the Council who did all in
their power to oppose the tricks of
the whisky interest. But enough
on this point. There are others we
intended to notice, but have not
room. We simply do not propose,
so far as we are concerned, to allow
the people to be blamed for a condi-
ton of things they are in no wise
for. Had their voice
been needed, and their instructions
been obeyed there would to-day be
no trouble on this question.
There has lately been noticeable
larIina 4, kha ,.okaa 80 ;.ao.o.k g..