The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1881-02-17
COLUMBUS.
How the Local Option Bill was LOst-Ths Old
Story Of Republican Hypocrisy.


COLUMBUS, Feb. Io.-As predicted,
the King local option bill was lost in the
House, failing to receive the constitu
tional number of votes necessary to pass
it. Two hundred thousand petitioners
have been asking the Legislature to pass
a local option law. They may now
make up their minds that the Legislature
will not do it. The temperance people
relying upon the plighted faith of the
Republican politicians, voted the Re-
publican party into power. But they
may as we'll understand that the party
does not intend to keep its word, and
did not intend to keep it when the prom>
Use was made. The temperance people
may save time, trouble and postage
stamps by using the petitions to light
their fires with and will accomplish just
as much as to send them to the present
Legislature. Having promised to pass
local option law, and having come in
to power upon that promise. having the
votes necessary to pass the law, the rep
resentatives of the party qulbbied and
lodged and squirmed and wriggled as
long as they could, and when at last
made to face the question they fatty re-
fused to pass the law, broke their
pledged word and covered like whipped
dogs in fear and trembling. Even in
thus breaking their pledge the Represen-
tatives of the Republican party had not
the merit of doing it decently and with
boldness, but the hypocritcal meanness
that always accompanies Republican
action was with it to the end. 1t was
the story of last winter told over again.
The Republicans, generally, voted in
favor of local option, so as to make
pretense that the party favors it, but it
was carefully arranged, that there should
not be enough to pass it. The fraud was
worked out with mathematical nicely.
It takes s. votes to pass bill, and just
fifty Republicans voted for the King To-
cal option bill; the other eight were
either absent or voted on the other side.
The following is the vote in detail:
Those who voted in the affirmative
were, Messrss. Allen, Atkins, Beman,
Bishop, Carlisle, Carpenter, Clement,
CONRAD, Cope, Dial, Ellsworth, Frame,
Furgeson, Greene, Greiner, Harmon,
Hathaway, Hays, Herrick, Hopkins,
Howard, Jones, King, Kurtz, Legget,
Letcher, Licey, McConkey, Milllkan,
Moore of Washington, Morrey, Pearl,
Price, Pugsley, Reed of Trumbull, Scott
of Jefferson, Scott of Warren, Smith,
SNYDER, Spetangle, Stubbs, Sullivan,
Thorpe. Tyler Of Licking, Wetmore,
Williams, williamson, Young, Speaker
go
Those who voted in the negative were
Messrs. Armstrong, Bloom, Brenner
Brown Of Butler, Brown of Putnam,
Brownfeld, Bull, Chapman, Cochran,
Corey, Corryell Covert, Critics, Davis,
Dayton, Decker, Dempcy, Durham,
Ebright, Ellis, Eslill, Groom, Groschner,
Hardy, Heart, Hill of Hamilton, Hume,
Kirchner, Lock, Long, Marsh, McCul-
lough, McConkey, McCrary, Moore of
Pike, Negley, Palmer, Patton, Ray,
Reed of Ross, Rimer. Sawyer. Stryker,
Tyler of Wyondott Vallandigham,
Voight, Wallace, Ward. Wheeler, Wolfe,
Yates. Absent-Kerr, Koons, Porter,
Reese, Wilson, Barton, Hill of Summit,
Paine, Shape.
Four Democrats voted for the bill, At
kins, Ferguson, Hopkins and Tyler of
Licking. What will yet be done, there
is no telling, but no local op'ion bill be
passed. The King bill was reconsidered
this morning, and another attempt will
be made to pass it, but it will not sue
ceed, unless enough Democrats vote for
it, which is not very likely. There are
several other bills Of similar nature pen
ding, but they will all go the same way