The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1879-11-15
WHAT CAN WE EXPECT ?

The late election demonstrated the fact
that large majority of tie voters of Cecil
county desire an opportunity to decide
by ballot whether or not the present Ii
cense system for the sale Of Intoxicating
liquors shall be continued in Cecil county.
The vote, informal as it was, is too en-
phatic to be misunderstood. There can
be no doubt as to the overwhelming senti-
ment of the people on the subject. 1t is
not now pertinent to inquire on which
side the majority will be when The test
vote comes upon the merits of License.
The question now is a preliminary one:
How to secure the opportunity to express
an opinion favorable or unfavorable on
the License system. In other words, i'll
view of the anomalous fact. that three to
one Of the qualified voters Of Cecil coun-
ty have expressed themselves iii favor of
law submitting the question of License
to the people for decision. and have at
the same election chosen three Repre-
sentatives to Annapolis presumably un-
favorable to the very legislation they
have 50 emphatically asked for, what
have the friends of Local Option to ex-
pect at the hands of those newly-electcd
gentlemen That Messrs. Steele, Touch
stone and Mccullough are morally bound
to respect the sentiment of the people. no
can man deny. They cannot, with even
a show of consistency. avoid this obliga-
ton by pretending that the issue was not
squarely raised and openly joined in the
recent canvass. Outside Of the question
of the comparative qualification OF can
didates for the local offices. it was the
only issue involved in the campaign Just
closed. 1t is true that they refused to
define their position on the issue. That
they went before the people rs unpledged,
while their opponents-Messr, L. SlcCul-
Tough, Haines and Joncs-asked the sup
port of the friends of Local Option. as
pledged advocates Of the measure. Can
Mcssrs, Mccullough, Steele and Touch
stone now claim that. by virtue of their
ttlllStil W l)lttSt W nv diiNO-
cacy of bill submitting the question of
License to the people, that therefore they
are not bound to regard SO significant
vote on the preliminary question just sub
mittcd? We think not. Whatever they
may consider Themselves. they are not
elected as paftjSnas. They represent the
sentiment of al the people of Cecil coun-
ty, not merely that of one or another
party. Besides, did not tie committee
of the Democratic party, while refusing
to commit the party" to Local Option,
employ a method to ascertain the Senti-
ment of all the voters by placing upon
their tickets the words for or against
Local Option? Was this sham, or did
it maan any thing? Now every vote cast
for the Republican delegates, the words
g For Local OPTION heading their ticket
is just as binding upon the candidate
elected as the Democratic ballot cast with
the word against stricken off, Both bal
lots mean precisely the same thing-the
expression of an opinion favorable to the |
passage Of q iaw atfording the people an
opportunity to express u final opinion on
the question of License There was no
difference Of opinion between the Tenn !
perance men of the two parties as to the !
merits of Local Option, The question /
was one Of "method.' For the Demo, /.
cratic delegates to pretend that, because
the vote just taken was unauthorized by .
law, that therefore it has no binding
force on them, is an evasion which we
are sorry to believe them guilty of. Yet,
at least two of the delegates pretend to
recognize no force in the vote just taken.
They treat the entire Republican Local
Option vote as nullity, They assume
to ignore it simply because a partisan
the Democratic plan in Cecil
was nothing else-was not employed to
express Republican sentiment. What
could be more partisano An emphatic