Daily Republican., 1881-01-18
Laaal ontien.


come prominently before the Legisla-
ture this winter viii be that for cur
failing the sale Of intoxicating liquors.
The question has been before every
Legislature for quite q number Of years
past, but although there has been an
attempt made to pass q stringent IL
csnse law the Legislature has never
vet reached the summit Of local option
or prohibition. Though there aaVe
been several movements made in favor
Of securing local option, there has
been . hslding back Of the friends Of,
temperance in asking for local option
In the face Of decision rendered IN
the year 1854 by Chief Justice Booth, de-
local option to be unconssitu'
tional. No one strove harder than
Hon. N. B. smithers to retain the law
upon the statute books Of the sta'e'
but he was ovsrruled, and now MT.
Smithers. though personally favoring
the law. Is decidedly Of the opinion
that no law embodying the principles
Of local option would stsas II me lace
Of the decisian ,ierrsd to.
|. There Is an idea extant amongst she
friends of prohibition and local option
that local option law can be framed
to obviate the objections SET forth IN
Judge Booths decision. 1t was then
held that the Legislature had no right
to delegate the Law making power 70
the people-that they were elected 70
make the laws, and that any other
course was clearly in violation OF the
Constitution. "Locsl option laws" are
laws In which the Legislature does not
forbid liquor selling generally through
out the State, but refers the question
to the people of the counties or OF va
rious particular localities, whether II
censes to sell shall be granted or not
Within year or two past LEGAL option
laws somewhat more discreetly framed
have been questioned in some OF the
courts Of kentucky, Kansas, Maryland
and other States, and have been sus-
tanned. The Judges say that If the
Legislature passes laW iorbidding Ii.
aucr selling, or ons allowing license,
there can be no Obi sction to submitting
the question whether the law shall
take effect in any particular county to
a popular vote. That Is, the people be
allowed to choose which law shall be
put into operation, the one prohibiting
or the one granting licenses. 1t would
lock, we think, to unprejudised minds,
that there should be no objection to
dslegating that much power to the peo-
pie. Here are two laws laid before
them, neither Of them operative only
when the people say which shall be
operative. One Of these laws provides
that liquor may be sold under restric
tive laws rs they are now sold under
license from the State. The other pro.
vides that II a majority Of the voters
favor 1t, the restrictive or license laws
may be set aside for a specified length
Of time and no license shall be granted
to sell liquor, and prohibiting the sale
OF it under all circumstances, except
as the Law provides. This amounts TO
entire prohibition Of the liquor traffic
Just as much as il the most stringent
prohibition laws we're passed, in fact II
is an entire prohibitory law. The local
option part Of II is In leaving it to a
vote Of the people whether they will
have prohibition or license laws for the
next year or two years, as may be pro-
vided. Tae indications are that there
will be stiff fight in the Legislature
upon the introduction Of q local option
bill in that body. Zach side is mar
,hsling its forces and the battle will
commence this week. The State Ten
perance Alliance Is TO meet at Dover
% day to map out the Plan which 1t
will pursue, and the first avalanche of
in favor Of local option will
% presented. The bill, we are inform
ID, ia being drawn by J. Alexander
'ulton, Esq, Of Dover, with much care,
o that the constitutional objections to
be law may be avoided. The liquor
zen, too, are not idle, they having
ecured headquarters At the capital
nd employed powerful lobby to look
fter their interests. The indications
re- not very favorable to the passage
I the bill, as the Democrats In the
being in large majority,
7ill bs responsible for whatever is
one, and they will fear the effect II
7ill have upon their party. Person
lily a majority Of them favor the bill,
.ud so do majority OF their constitu.
nts In Kent and Sussex, but they are
and their party must not
% jeopardized. II they are convinced
hat local option will not hurt their
,srty they will pass the bill, otherwiseJ
hey will not. With them it becomes
uestion entirely Of politics-ths moral
earring Of the question will haye no
veight with them whatever. We do