The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-09-16
sus.s ON LOCAL sprros.

oInDS ON LOCAL OPTION.
- EAou1snant- Govsrnsr, IL N Inter-
iufDU VIII Herald Reporter. gives
- Views en- this Absorbing Question. |
AZ TIE inter view with Senator Coke
1nd Mr.. Simpkins' letter, bad given
"A NV impetus to the prohibition dis
~ ousslon, tho reporter tackled Leuten.
ant Governor Gibbs for an interview.
- Ihe reporter did not exactly succeed.
but In . lively conversation tho gov.
sr>S1nor committed himself about as
ollows:
Dfice, the wlttlclsm of his newspaper
kriends don't worry him, and that he
]. us satisfied with his position on tho
prohibition question and don't feel
lonesome or lind the top rail uucom-
Portable. He expresses no surprise at
recent election results and says they
only show that many local optionists
are satisfied 10 control their own pre-
Cinots, and don't care to force
their views on other precincts;
that those Democrats who have been
read out OF the party In the local option
question haven't gone and won't go,
unless the.party in convention declares
luf~ In favor OF repeating local option laws
majind solemnly excommunicates them.
but. de don't anticipate any declaration OF
, : This kind on the part of the next
State convention, as men holding
these extreme views won't control the
y Sorganixstion. He Is OF the opinion
hat recent elections have developed,
such division OF sentiment,
that tho next legislature will
submit the amendment and
4 Will DO defeated, and
operating under tho local option law.
He still adheres to his declaration that
local option Ia the most Democratic
and rational solution Of tho question,
but believes that under the present
law these elections are too frequent
for the peace and prosperity OF the
communities. Flo has no faith either
In the success or efficiency OF general
prohibition, and Is convinced that
when public opinion IL crystallized IL
will be In favor Of local option, high
license, or some other policy not nee
essArily prohibitoIy, but in
the nature OF q local pol.
10y, regulating in harmony
with local sentiment upon which II
must depend for It's enforcement.
Gibbs Is earnest In his convictions
SAAA AOAA SpoohA w WHY pNci puO pOPu-
I, lArity or unpopularity OF his Vows or
the fact that local option has been pro-
nounced undemocratic.
In his Judgment before q final solu-
ton of the question is reached, IL will
% found necessary to mako some dis
tinction In tho restrictions on the sale
Of wine aud beer and stronger
drinks. He says this distinction
has already been made in
New York under their excise laws.
The acknowledgements expressed
considerable amusement Mt those who
accused him OF being on tho fence, but
at the same time advocated nigh
liconse. High license, says he, is Far
ual prohibition, just as local option is,
and its advocates claim that, like local
option, IL will force tho saloon bust |
ness to coniine itself to trade centors |
and put the business In the hands OF
fewer aud more responsible mon. He
says that extrome pr0hibitionists |
want Immediate aud absolute probi- |
bition; extreme antl-prohibitionists
20 be consistent, must advocate
the removal of all reqtric-
lions on whisky traffic, and
mat neither will succsed.
He spoke In the highest terms of Sem
at0r Coke and his Interview, so far as
1t relstsd To general prohibition, but
couldn't SEQ why no should oppose
local option, and ut the same time ad.
vocate high license. as the results |
would be about the same. He argued |
that under a high license system the
legislature, If so disposed, could put
the license so high that 1t would have |
ageneral prohibitory. effect, and even II |
not high enough to have this effect, |
would discriminate In favor of indi- |
yidusls who had tho necessary
money TO pay the license.
A great many who oppose |
Local option do so on tho ground that, |
adopted In all the counties, 1t would |
DC prohibition, yet In the same breath |
advocated high license, which Is sub
Ject to the same objections, or even !
would manipulate IL TO this end. Both |
nigh lioenH9 and local option are police |
regulations, and one Is Just m distinct |
from prohibition IN the other; neither |
10 intended to absolutely prevent the |
sale and manufacture Of liquor,
put only to prevent Its sale |
IN localities whore II is OBJ
lectionablo to tho majority.
Concluding the conversation, he said
"High license creates n monopoly, |
ana can't sec wherein it IL any moro |
Demooratic thnu locai-option, and II, |
- claimed by tho Waco Examiner, / |
am on the i0nce In opposing prohibi- |
ton and fsvorlng tho right OF local
option, what will be done with Sena-
tor Coke, General Ross and the others, |
who oppose the right OF local option,
but advocate high license? What Is
the difference between saying to man |
absolutely YOU can't come into this |
locality and sell whisky, or in |
saying TO him you can't
sell whisky horo unless |
You pay more Tor the privilege than |
you can afford. Under tho present con-
autution the Legislature can put tho |
License M high rs II pleasos; ut pres |
ont IL Is In revenue basis. L still DO. |
lieve local-option tho most reasonable
Of all police regulations suggested,
but as violations OF this law are pun
ishable by precinct courts, believe
that the constitution would have been |
moro consistent had IL confined the |
vote 70 precincts" laughed at tho
idea OF tho prohibition party max |
Ing fight on the DEM
ocatic party of Texas
or Of local optionists having any sym. |
pethy with the political party organ \
lxed ~ Dallas, or with tho National |
rrohibition party. Ho referred to
Hockwau al the banner Democratic |
county In the State, yet az the one
most thoroughly In favor of local OBJ
slon and the onv which had tried II |
klss me, darling, FOR your breath Is
sust~sweet asnow- mown hay;