The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1884-10-25
tFor the Republican,
Ttal The People of Garrett County,
Particularly tho Voters.
VIM. r. GETTY.

| : IEtSSaAstN = OupAO VI OdL AOOb OOuuUJI
Particularly tho Voters.
Cttize'nof Garrett County:
On TN fourth of November, you
will haN to decide at the polls a
question, he decision of which is of
great Importance to the people of our
county. 1 Iefert to the Local Option
question.
Heretofore, we have been unable
to help ourselves. However much
we may have been opposed to the sale
of intoxicating liqtors within our
county, we were not able to prevent
it. Now, however, our legislators
leave it to US to decide whether we
will allow the old stale of things to
continue, or whether we will try
change and forbid the sale of intoxi-
eating drinks within our mountain
county. A responsibility rests upon
us that we have never had before.
How will we meet it? Each, voter
must do one of three things-Yote
directly in favor of the sale of intoxi-
eating liquors, or squarefy against it,
or attempt to dodge the question by
not voting either way. Upon such
an important question as this, each
one should have a decided opinion
and be ready to back his conviction
with his vote. Selling intoxicating
drinks is either right or it is wrong !;
if right, we should vote for it; if
wrong, we ought to vote against it..
Let US meet the issue fairly and
squarely.
Whatever it may be in some local
ties and under some circumstances,
th6Iuestion as it is presented to US
of Garrett county is in no sense pO-
litical one and has nothing to do with
political parties. Men of all parties,
republicans, democrats, greenback-
ers, prOhibitiOniSts. may all unite in
supporting this local option measure
and yet not abandon their respective
parties. 1t is not party question,
but the peoples question. Let US keep
this clearly in view: That no matter
who favors or who opposes it, party,
as such, has nothing to do with this
question as we have to deal with it,.
Let us not become confused, but be
cear-headed, and settle the question
entirely upon its merits, remember
ing our responsibility in the matter.
We should not refuse to support this
measure, simply because there may
be persons favoring it and working
for it, whom we may not like or
whose course may not meet with our
approval. If it is good thing, let us
support it and be glad of all the help
we can get.
Now that the legislature has given
us the opportunity. ought we not to
make change in regard to the liquor
traffic in our county? We have tried
licensing it, and the results have been
bad enough, as we all know who have
witnessed them. 1t is not necessary
to give instances we can call up
plenty of them in our own minds.
Let each one carefully think over the
number of his acquaintance who
have Teen injured by intoxicating
drinks and who, in consequence, have
brought more or less Of trouble upon
their relatives and friends. AS an
Offset to this, can any one show us
any good that has come to our coun-
ty from The sale of intoxicating bev-
erages? Ifthe liquor traffic does harm
to our citizens and does not do good,
should we not try to put stop to it
now that it is in our power to do it ?
But some may say, 1--WE cannot
stop it by law" Possibly not entire
ly; no law ever yet made, against any
| CiIhNf NAG CNcI U6cu cuLIIclJ SucC'
tual in preventing that crime. We
have laws against murder, against
theft. against forgery, yet murders
thefts and forgeries are committed in
spite OF these laws. But willany one
therefore he foolish enough to say
that we ought not to have laws
against these crimes? BY means o.
the laws, crimes are greatly lessened
in number, even if not entirely pre-
vented; and it is better to have less
ofan evil than great deal of it. In
stead of sanctioning this traffic, VIZ
can make it crime by putting it I'M
der the ban of the law.
! But some one may say, "a mar