San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1885-09-10
Local Option a Democratic Measure.

Under the false plea that il is q
'sumptuary law" We notice that IL Is
argued by certain politicians and
newspapers that prohibition is anti
democratic. International democratic
platform is quoted in support OF this
assumption, and the attempt is made
TO read all prohibitionists out OF the
democratic party. These self-consh'
tinted ipquisitors seem TO have forgot
ten what is in the constitution OF the
state Of Texas. The Cuero Star ap-
propriately refreshes their memory
as follows;
The present constitution OF the
state was formed by convention OF
democrats, and when republican
convention denounced it AZ demo
cratic rag-baby, such democrats as
Reagan, Coke, ct al, took the stump
in its defense. The constitution was
adopted with the party cry and as n
democratic paper, Article 1G, section
30 of that instrument reads: "The
Legislature shall, Mt its first session,
enact a law whereby the qualified
voters of any county, justices pre-
cinct, town or city, by majority
vote, from time TO time may determine
whether the sale of Intoxicating IL.
auors shall be prohibited within the
prescribed limits" Such is the Ian
gnage of the democratic constitution,
adopted by democratic vote in the
face of q protest from the republican
party. The local option law was
enacted by democratic legislature
in accordance with this provision OF
the constitution. All of which goes
to show that the democratic party OF
Texas is responsible for local option,
Messrs. Mills and Coke to the contra
ry notwithstanding.
And the Fairfield Recorder adds
the following equally appropriate re-
marks:
When it is known that the Consti-
tuition of the State required local
option law; and when said law has
been ON the statute books nearly ten
years; and when the people of va
rious counties have been quietly
holding non political local option
elections since then, and when even
Navarro and McLennan counties
(the homes of Mills and Coke have
for several years voted on local OPP
ton, and had adopted it in all tho
country precincts, is it not little
strange, at this hour that Coke and
Mills should suddenly have their
eyes opened and see so much politi'
cal heresy in ii. MS to denounce it as
"undemocratic,' and it's followers as
democratic liars? Ii Messrs. Mills
and Coke did not intend to make the
issue one of politics, and to preclpi-
tate it on the party, why their sudden
denunciation, this late in the day?
They Numbered and charged, but, no
doubt, now feel astonishingly disap-
pointed in the calm, sober opposition
they have encountered; while their
to make the question one of
party politics is fast proving q miser-
able failure. 1t is evident already
from tho alignment of unquestion
able Democrats who think for them
selves on the question, that if Coke
and Mills are returned to Washing
ton, they will have to eat big dish
of "crow", because if tho prohibition
Democrats" are eliminated from the
ranks of Mr.. Coke's "true democ-
racy", we do not know what he and
Col. Mills will dol The prohibition
Democrats are not going to leave the
party just because Mr.. Coke, person
ally, has insulted them, or Col. Mills
says they are not Democrats; there
fore, if said gentlemen scorn prohibit
ZIONIST assistance, in future, how will
they get nominated and electedY
How?
Verify, these proscriptionists present
q beautiful spectacle in assuming to
rule out all prohibition democrats,
They will find they have big job on
t',eir hands.