St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1884-12-13

Some questions, serious IN them
selves, are made ridiculous by the way
they are treated. This is the case with
the prohibition question in this parish.
A petition numerously signed by citi-
zens of this parish, not by those of any
particular ward, was presented to the
police jury to have submitted to the
voters of this parish, some time next
month, the question whether the sale of
| intoxicating liquors should be prohibit
ed in the parish of st. Landry. At the
meeting last Monday, only one member
out of nine being absent, the matter
was considered. One member who
seemed to be the only one of that way
of thinking moved that the question be
submitted to the people by wards and
not to the parish at large as desired by
the prohibitionists. This motion was
tabled. The motion then required, to
submit the question to the parish at
large, and all present voted for it, ex-
cept the aforementioned member and
the president who did not vote at all,
there being no tie. In other words, six
voted for it and one against it. The
jury proceeded to other business, and
adjourned till Tuesday, when the alb
sent member was present. By some
parliamentary tactics that we know
nothing about, the ordinance passed the
day before, submitting the question to
the parish at large, was reconsidered
and repealed, and another one passed
submitting it by wards, there being a
tie vote, and the president deciding the
question. The Drohibitionists may
carry some of the wards, but they can
hardly carry all, especially the Repub-
lican wards and we are not certain
that there would be any benefit in hav-
ing the sale of liquor prohibited in some
wards and not in others. 1t may be
that an individual has legal right to
get drunk, impoyerish his family, and
die drunkard, and be buried at the
public expense, if the public please to
bury him but if Intoxicating liquors
cause him to disturb this peace, to kill
others, to violate the laws generally,
and thereby to increase the burden OF
taxation by increasing the criminal ex-
penses, the law abiding people and tax
payers, it seems, should have the right
to abate the evil, if they can, in legal
way If the question be voted upon by
wards, and some wards prohibit the
sale of liquor and some do not, we are
satisfied that the proportion of crime
will be less in the wards where no liquor
is sold and these wards will be taxed
to pay the costs Of the crimes commit
ted by drunkenness in the other wards
i This would not be just. We did moi
sign the petition for the prohibition OF
the sale of liquor, and We are not Ger
tain that we would vote that way fol-
our natural way of thinking is that any
person ought to be allowed to sell OF
buy any legitimate article of commerce
The abuse of strong drink is a grea
evil, even if it involves no others ex
cept those who indulge in it; but it il
still moOted question with us, wheth
er only those who abuse it should b.
held responsible. If the sale of liquol
sh ould be abolished, the manufacture
of it should be abolished, or limited
But we are decided as to one thing, tina
the question of prohibition should b.
submitted to the parish at large, ant
not to the wards separately. The PEG
Pile of the parish as a whole, are interest
ed in the matter for the evils com
! planned of, involve the taxpayers of th'
parish as whole, and not by wards
If in ward where the sale of liquor i
not prohibited, crimes are committed
through drunkenness, other ward
where the sale of liquor is prohibited
will have to help pay the judicial cost
of such crimes. We are firmly con
WINGED that the police jury erred TO
the parish is but one political communi
; and the sale Of liquor should be allowed
or prohibited throughout the entire par
ISL.
The National Surgical Ensti