West Virginia freeman. (Parkersburg, W. Va.) 1881-1886, 1881-04-06
WESTVIRGINIA FREEMAN.
LOCAL OPTION IN MARYLAND.
BY THOMAS l.. POULSoN, DID.


to citizens by the Legislature Of the
privilege Of expressing by ballot
their wish for or against the licens-
ed sale of Intoxicating liquors as
beverages in given locality. In
one form and another this preroga-
tivc has been enjoyed by our yeo-
many for long time. The meth
Cd is only an enlargement, so to
speak, of the early and continued
restriction in connection with the
license system, which requires an
applicant for permission to sell such
dangerous fluids to he recommended
by limited number Of respectable
frecholders of his immediate vicini-
ty The only appreciate differ
ence is that the Local Option plan
prescribes that majority Of voters
shall favor the issuance of the fac
titious liberty to dernonize their
fellows.
For over hundred years our
State has striven by legislation to
control or curtail the rum-fend
within her borders. rs one after
another of the essays has failed to
abridge his arrogant and rapacious
power, the sovereign people have
been driven to new defenses and sor-
ties. Amid the perpetual strife it
has been affirmed by friend and foe
that no law touching this vexed
question could be enforced against
public opinion, whatever that is.
Local Option obviously meets and
masters that man of straw, by plac-
ing prohibition only where the pre-
DOnderance of sentiment comedies
with the law. 1t also removes the
delicate (?) matter of passing upon
the merits of the question from the
clean CD hands of the sensitive CD
politicians, whose only desire is to
know what their dear constituents
would have them do in all cases,
and places it where there can be an
authoritative expression of will By
The people, which should be the basis
Of all law in a government for the
people, 1t transfers the question
from the threadbarc province of re-
form to the sterner and more deci-
l,ive realm of policy and morals for
the civil commonwealth, by the final
mandate of the onl V autocrat whose
title and dominion are indisputablc
the will of the people. 1t affords
common ground on which all lovers
Of order and virtue, as we'll as all
thralls to the drink demon, can
stand, without reference to their
personal opinions and practices as
10 the pernicious habit of drinking.
1t is fair and just process of set
fling the perplexing query of the
popular mind on the propriety of
tolerating the nuisance in a neigh
6orhood, even under the most favor
able auspices.
In this article we propose to fur
niah the indubitable evidence upon
which We base our claim to assurance
Of succ css for the measure of Local
Option in Maryland. We have now
ten and a half counties out of twen-
ty-three under prohibition in the
State by this method.
In Worcester County
the law became effective in April,
1874. AT the May and October
terms of Court of 1878 and May
term of 1874 the presentments were
one hundred and sixteen; whereas
for the October term of 1874 and the
May and October terms of 1875 they
were less than one third, being only
thirty-eight. The State Attorneys
fees were reduced about three
fourths, the year after the law went
into effect. These grand results
were reached in the face of two con-
trolling difficulties. One was a vi
tal blunder in so framing the law
as to allow druggists to sell, and
therefore drug-stores multiplied,
and were speedily transformed into
grog-shops, thus bringing the law
into contempt. The other was the
unfortunate fact that q fashionable
seaside resort was located within
Che county, and the influential
stockholders strenuously opposed
the measure because of its Interrupt
sion of their schemes.
Dorchester County