The Osceola times., 1879-11-29
Lrt Us Reason Together.

thtm pctitioh CuTiug Tue Weeh
asking them To pray the county
court TO prohibit The sale Of spiritu
Qua liquors within three miles OF
the Academy located at this place
II has been numerously signed by
the adult residents OF the township,
aud We hore a majority Of them
will yet to 80. A counter petition
has been circulated by some, not
all, OF those engaged in the liquor
traffic. Which will win, remains to
be seen.
This petition is circulated in the
interest Of education, which ought
to be very dear to all of eur com.
manity. Let It be known abroad
that tins township prefers the build
ing up Of institutions oflearning in.
s.,ad of saloons and dram shops,
aud our Academy will receive such
on accession OF patronage from the
surrounding country. as will insure
us, in time. first class educational
facilities here at home. This is
tho hight in which We look at this
natter. Ifa majority of the peo
pie Of this township decide in favor
81 whiskcy, and against education,
sha, will settle II; and VIC, and all
who signed the petition in favor OF
the Academy. will submit like law.
abiding people generally do. We
may have fow candidates for the
poor-house on the petition, but we
are all too rmh and too wise, and
cool headed to make fuss about u
matter Of legal right aud freedom
of opinion. We don't own the sa
loons nor the votes Of those who
favor them nor do We believe that,
constitutionally speaking, the sa-
loon own us, or the votes we cast.
We may be mistaken as to this lat.
ter proposition, but counsel i.iorm
us that we are correct in the views
here expressed. The gentlemen
who say, that even ifa ma iority of
the adult residents Of the township
favor prohibition, they can beat us
IN the courts, have u legal right to
that opinion. If they are correct,
they have the game in their own
hands. Why. then, those tears and
Lamentations? Why this ouiburs,
et anger, on the part OF those who
favor u tra6c which, TO accept the
language of Chief Justice English,
is pernicious aud detrimental to
public morals -?
lf we are beat. We lawabiding
petitioners, will have the comfort
"f knowing that it wasn't our fault
The law is open; let them implead
ono :nothe." II we aro beat, ",
will pick our flint and try it again
YJu know IL is not in the nature OF
I" faao,sc to let up until his funeral
has been duly and truly celebrated
He hasn't any better sense than tc
he in dead earnest on the subjec,
which has unsettled his mind, and
when he or she turns agin whisky
he is ogin It,"
One great objection to the peti
ton is that il will hurt tho business
Of the town! What business il
particular The saloons. But how
will it hurt business in general
The argument we have heard i
this, that when men are drinking
they spcnd their money freely, AM
don't chatter and haggie about th
price. For purposes Of this kind
and looked at from u strictly com
mcrcial standpoint, We reckon
drunken man, with money, is wort
moro than q sober one. That ma,
to TO the advantage OF the seller
but how is it for the fellow who /
drunk! Bad Tor him, If he has me
ncy. This argument is unsound
and such IA no enlightened mel
chant will use. Business success,
honest business, never did depen
upon drunken people for its guar
sntee. Sobriety insures the pro,
perity ofthe people, ana when the
prosper, all men dllligent in thei
cnl,ngs, prosper in exact propor
tion.
If the prohibition Of the liquo
traffic within three miles Of I'll
school should turn out bad policy
the people can alter it. The Who'll
matter Is In their hards, and the
have u right to prohibit it, il they Sc
proper. Il is simple matter G
policy, a question OF expediency
~ da nr uoi in d. a carf .,in him.