The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-08-23
GIBBS ON PROHIBI I0y.
DEMOCRACY OF LOCAL OPTION
And the Difference Bstweea It and n
General Prohibltory Law-Mms'
Error-Pulpit Pleadings will
not Help the Cause In
Political Way.

When asked he had any idea of going
out of politics altogether, he gave o
simple aud child .likesmile, and said
he would let the questioner know in a
couple Of years, as the weather was
then to hot to contemplate such q Pre-
found subject. Tho impression pre-.
walls that no wcund not absolutely in
sist upon having the nomination for
governor rendered him on gold plate.
There is one thing about Mr.. Gibbs,
however, TO distinguish hun from the
common run OF politicians. On public
questions be has no secrats from
the people. He IL always ready
to discuss every question o.
Importance that comes up, and he
even has happy faculty Tor present
ing questions for the consideration of
the people. When News man con
tronted him with request for an in
teryleW he did not say II was too early
in the campaign TO commit himself, az
other aspirants for State Office arc
fond OF saying, bat promptly invited
the reporter to fire away with his quss-
tions. The prohibition question be-.
ing at present the question OF
the hour, was first taken I'D with the
following result:
"Goysrnor, what do you think OF
Congreesmaq Mills position on the
prohibition question, and what is your
position on lt?"
81 believe no is wrong in his posi-
tlon on the question OF local option,
and that his views Gre at variance
with those OF a majority OF the Demo-
Gratis OF THIS STATE and contrary to
Democratic precedent III many
States. do contends that there is no
difference in principle between local
option laws and general prOhibltOry
legislation, and that Democracy
should oppose both. | am opposed to
a general prOhibitorY law by the State
or general government, because he
Ieve sucn legislation would b. in yiD-
latlon of the principle OF local ss.t-
government. 1 don't think that local
option is; on the contrary, am cor
WINGED that it is based on the princi.
pie OF local self-government. | nave
always been taught that the frat
principle Of Democracy was that the
majority should rule, but as q limiJa-
ton on this doctrine it has always
been regarded as part OF the
Democratic creed THAI maiorities
should be localized as far as was
consistent with jan efficient admin
lstratlon or government. IL ie on this
limitation OF the msjolity principle
that the doctrine Of states rights was
based, and iG was in accordance with
this doctrine that Texas, Georgia and
Mississippi, and other largely Demo.
cratic States, have provided for local
option, bat have opposed prohibition.
colonel Mills contends that il al tho
counties in the State, voting by coun-
ties, adj pit lojal option, that the result
would DO tho Same rs IL tho State had
adopted general prOhibitory law,
Conceding that be is correct IN this
statement, still IN tho one case we
would aiIiy9 40 this result by Demo.
cratic mttlOds, and iH the other we
would do violence to that Democratic
principle whichrequires the locali2iag
OF maJ0rues. The more government
is Localized the nearer We get to tho
people, and ours Is really Eoy-
ernmenL by counties. Leaving outthe
difference IN principle Involved in the
question abstrsct'y considered, therais
practical difference between local
option and prohibition. When local
option l. voted By county or procinct
il reflects The sentiment uf tho msio--
ity OF those who have immediate con
troll OF the machinery of gOvSrnmsnt
with which to enforce its PROVISIONS,
ana coun y that determines that no
liquor shall be sOidil iis precincts Will
elsct officers ia iull accord with this
continent. o. tho contrary, II Che
state aoopts general pr0hibiJOTy law
those counties casting q majority
against 10 Will never enforce the law,
as the oilicers OF tho county, from con-
stable to judge, VIII reflect the s6uti-
mont OF tho voters. III tho State
adopts q general prOhibitOrV law, TO
make II al-SiliclenG we would have to
change the entire machinery OF State
government so as to have
juries and prosecuting oflioera
represent the sentiment OF State
majority Instead Of q county majority.
Drunkenness, whether considered
from social, moral or legal stard-
point, Is an ofienHo against the peace
and dignity OF the Immediate COM
munity, rather than en- O1ense against
the peace and dignity of tho State, and
the expense OF It's prosecution falls
upon the county, ana for this reason
the sale OF liquor should DO regarded
as a question OF purely local interest,
best regulated by local sentiment.
Local option laws have proved efficient
IN Rockwell and other counties in this
State and In other States, but there Ia
no state which has made y success OF
general prohibitory legislation, If the
doctrine OF States-rlg hts Is founded on
any reason, then tho same reason
would exist for distinction between
police regulation adopted by local.
tiles TO meet their peculiar views
and surroundings and q general law,
IL, as contended by Colonel Mills,
1t is the same thing wheth-
or prohibition is enacted BY ooun-
ties or the state or the general govern
mont, the same can be said on all
questions OF legislation. There was
never more rational distinction
made by the common law than the
one made between things evil In
themselves and those thnt were evil
because prohibited by law. Those
ofenses mala per no are easily con-
trolled by general Legislation; those
ofenses merely mala prohibita depend
more upon local sentiment for their
suppression. Any legislation ON
these quasi social and moral questions
should be in the nature of u municipal
police regulation to be effective.
While II is no argument against the
wisdom OF law that IL is not On.
forced, yet legislation intended 10
regulate communities which wholly
disapproye of 1t, aud upon which we
necessarily depend for It's enforce.
ment, will be dead letter
in that community. Yes, sir, / believe
there Is vast difference In principle
and results between local.option legis.
lation, such as we now have, and gen.
eral prohibitory legislation. One is
democratic, the other In violation OF
well.established Democratic priucl-
PIES Instead of taking anything away
from the burdens snd responsibility of
county government as a legislator, /
favored adding to those burdens and
responsibilities, by advocating the
auditing OF and payment by commits
sioners courts OF The fees OF Office now
audited and paid by the State govern.
ment In criminal prosecutions. This
principle OF Democratic government is
right, and is favorable TO the exercise
OF local option. but at variance with
general prohibl ion legislation. The
principle becomes moro practical and
more necessary as population bocomes