Roseburg review. [volume] (Roseburg, Or.) 1885-1920, 1885-10-16
ROSEBURG REVIEW
FRIDAY, OCTOBER Is, 1855.
INCONVENIENCE.

L
the great whiskey organ Of tie State,
the Oregonian, without an answer such
articles as are constantly appearing In
its columns. 1t is recognized to-day b. I
the liqnor dealers all over the state as
the champion Of their causes and the |
greater foe with which prohibitionists
have TO contend. In recent aiticl. |
which is now extensively quoted l.y |
tile manufacturing industries of drunk
ards in this state, Mr.. Scott, says: 81
am to be the Judge of what goes into
my stomact and 10 other person has
that right" This is true whiskey log
ic pure and unadulterated liberty tx
which Mr. Scot the Democratic and
Repr blican party are devoteIly attach
Ell, and Mr. Scott does not intend t.
suffer any abridge1nent of these, hi>
natural rights Of this he gives us due
warning in the Oregoi,ian of O toier
the Sd. The fact is Mr. Scott is blinded
by the the conceit of his own grca ness.
The people of this State recognize Lin
and his Journal as the friend of the rum
power and that he is constituting this
power in the interest of the Repu 5lican
party. Mr.. Scott cares nothing for
the progress Of moral suasion or nom
partisan acton of temperance work and
we'll he knows that it can neither de-
stroy the liquor traffic or do harm to
the old parties, but talk Of third pu-
litical party, and every politician an,
Mr.. Scott included, are up in arms.
For well does he and every othe
shrewd politician recognize the
strength of political organization.
The Prohlpitioh parry which sprang
from ten thousand votes, in 1882 to
one hundred and ffty-three thousand
In 1854 and which to-day is organized
and is organized in every State and
Territory i'll the union, is not dead
fossil. And we wish to assure this
Mogul of the Delerium Tremens Brig
ade that the generation is now born
which will see the liquor traffic sup
pressed by National Law his great de
votion to personal liberty notwith-
standing. But lie says 'srhe people
will not suffer an abridgement of what
they term their natural rights nor will
they be dictated to as to what they
shall eat or drink" Now, Mr.. Scott,
please stand up while we put to you q
few plain questions Have not thepeo
pie through their Legislature as much
right to prohibit you from drinking IN
toxicating liquors as they have to pre-
vent me from smoking pipe of opium
Have not the people as clear consti
tutional right to prohibit you from Ell
.gaging In the manufacture Of intoxica
ting liquor as they have to prevent m
from engaging in the manufacture o
Intoxicating iiquorsas they have to pre-
vent me from engaging in the wholesal
publication and distribution Of obscen
iteraturel Answer Have the pee
pie not the same right to prevent 20,
from opening saloon for the manufac
ture Of drunkards as they have to pre-
vent me from opening gamblin
houseq- much the least of the two evils
For you know the greatest numbe
of gamblers, both men and womel
gamble with due moderation and d.
not abuse the privilege; bue because
very insignificant number of gambler
abuse this privilege you favor and hav
always favored its suppression by tn
most stringent legislative enactments
You tell me, by legislative enact
ments, that ! shall not, under certain
circumstances, eat venison, the mos
highly prizsd Of all meats, and tn
most wholesome; neither sh IL I offe
or have in my possession for sale @
other purposes, any grouse, phesants
ducks or mountain trout at certai
seasons of the year. Now, Mr.. Scott
who has been debating to The peopl
what they shall eat or drink Unde
whose legislation were these sumptuar
laws enacted. Did you not, and d
you not now, defend the sumptuar
measure in the State of New Yori
which prohibits the manufacture an
sale of butteline, q most harmless an
palatable article of diet? This vile an
sumptnarY measure passed the Legisl.
ture of the Empire State 10y an almo.
unanimous vote of the Representative
of the Demeeiatic and Repnblica
parties, aud has received your contil
uous endorsement as just ard Who'll
some law:
Now, Mr. Scott, if you have IL
right to say what kind of butter
shall put on my bread | must be a
lowed the privilege to say whether 20
shall drink water or whiskey. "Yo
will socn be debating to us what kin
of clothing We shall wear" You ha
better, Mr.. Scott, examine the statut
on this subject before making yourse
ridiculous again in the eyes of ever
lawyer in the State. Get up sou
morning and forget to put your pam
on and start up First or Second stree
and see how Far you will go before yo
realize that the sovereign authority
Oregon has already had something |
say about what kind Of clothes .yo
shall wear. You say, 1--WE make
fundamental mistake" The fund.-
mental mistake you make is trying
argue both sides of the question, alwa,
working in the interests of the rul
traffic. Mr. Scott, the prohibitio
L a : - =.