The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-09-17
rnenrn,s nor A,p LOCAL es..sx


Ne D1s11nceSoa Between the I've Prep
ssielsas-stsss ssvsrsisnty snd lsdi-
viduAl 1igAss-A scheme 70 Disrupt
shs Dsnsssatie Party.
DALLAS, TEXAS, Sept. la-[Editor
HxRALDl-It may be considered some
what late to assume . position on the
question Of prohibition or local option.
Your correspondent, however, is not
obnoxious TO the charge Of waiting to
and out public sentiment on this ques-
tion, IS he has record on the same,
reaching back long anterior to Its agi-
tation In t5ls country. II there Is any
one subject moro than any other ON
which the writer has taken a am
biguous position, 1t il this. In my
marrow sphere OF action have long
been opposed To any legislation on this
- we'll AS on kindred questions, look
ing to moral reformation. make no
Distinction between prohibition and
local option. find that they are gem
orally treated ~ one and the same by
all parties. The contests In the late
elections in both McLennan and Ma
varro counties were directly on local
option, but they are styled by both
parties IN having been made on prohi-
billion. This shows how the people un-
derstand the question. / have cf~eiu!-
ly read the Interview with the Hon.
Barnett Gibbs, published in THE HER.
AID some weeks since, and, not with-
standing tho high respect / entertain
for That gent!eman's views generally,
differ with him in the distinction he
seeks 10 make ON tho two propositions.
Indeed, / do not consider any OF luis
positions tenahls as 10 tue distinctions.
Now, MIR. Editor, do not intend to
Cumber your columns with an attempt
at argument, but wish merely stats
my position, with, perhaps, n
few reasons for the same. do
not think there Is any differ
snco in principle IN the government
by maj ority la a State and in The
same rule when applied { an in.egrsl
part OF tho State. There Is but little
analogy In the relations county sus-
tains TO u State and those which n
State sustains towards the Fedora
government. The states made the
general government, and they also
make iho counties, and dis
tricts into which they are d.
vtded. whatsoever powers or privileges
are I assessed by the counties were
conferred by the State, either In It's
Legislative capacity or by the people
In their organic law, aud which the
Legislature generally has TO pass upon.
While the Federal government, being
also creature of the States, has no
powers, save aud except those con.
ferred ,y the States. The early
fathers who belonged to the Jefler-
sonian school, zoe med extremely aux
tous to protect the States from inva-
si0ns by the government, while there
was no anxiety exhibited by them az
to the rights OF these subdivisions OF
the States. That was, as think,
wisely left with the States themselves.
Why local option should be demo-
cratic and prohibition undemOcratic,
can not understand. The great quer-
ti0n that has divided tho Democratic
party from all other parties since the
four"ation OF tho Federal government
down 10 the present, save aud except
the Southern wing of the Wing party,
has been lis persistent adherence to
State sovereignty. The Old Federal
party, as did all It's successors, save
the above exception, advocated a
stroug or centralized government,
with Its correlativa, weak peopl- !:
while the Democratic party has over
advocated the opposite. That Is the
great qneslol To-Day. For / hold, with
Mr.. Lawson, OF Georgia, az he lately
expressed, tina there can be no
change in the principles OF govern
m0nt except ~ made la It's Organic
law. Our great civil war, being FOL.
lowed by no change in our constitu-
ton, except as to the status OF the ne
gro, 1t follows that the States POSSESS
the same lights to day they always
Possessed, except the right to hold
slaves. The foregoing, then, IL the
great questiou-all others pale in com-
parlson. No man can be a Democrat
and be opposed to Stato sovereignty.
Nor can any man be q good Democrat
that Is found In the ranks OF any
other party wbero organization Is for
the purpose of riding into power over
the Democratic party. The doctrine
ofthe rights OF the States includes also
the greater doctrine--the rights Of
man. No man can consistently favor
the sound doctrine OF State aOver-
eighty and at the same time be willing
to abridge The rights of his fellow
man. They, J. o, State sovereignty
and individual rights, are as necessary
to each other ~ tho sun Is to llgnt,
Prohibition, or local option, is anti.
democratic because 1t seeks to abridge
individual rights by limiting aman's
expenses In regard to whaJ he shal
drink, and IL, therefore, sumpluary IN
Its character. Mr.. Gibbs favors loca
option because 1t gets near tho people
and IL, therefore, Democratic Per.
m tn an IN fa al -.
make 1t Democratic. Because 10 IL
Democratic for State to have free
and complete control of its own inter
nal concerns, Is does not follow that
the doctrine OF county, regulating Ia
own affairs " moro intensely Demo
cratic. II local option be undemc
cratic, per be, tho iurther II ia Lep
from the people, the better; and I
prohibition can DO classed rs stump. II
aly legislation no can local option
fcarried out, they both seek pro
htbit the use OF intoxicants rs a bev
0rage. Prohibition strikes at tn,
manufacturing and sale; local optiol
At tho sale or giving away OF tho same
Again; Mr.. Gibbs Ia opposed to pro
hibition because small majority In
State could thereby take away To-
privilege OF using intoSicants az q boy
erage from many counties p,nios
unanimously opposed to such legislr
ton, aud In such counties tho Law
would not DO enforced. He Is certainl,
correct In this, but does not tho oblec
ton apply to local option, when apple,
70 counties, equal force? One pre-
cinct being almost unanimously 1,
favor Of IL, might extend II over ever,
other precinctia the county, notwith.
standing every other precinct gave .
small majority against 1t. Nor would
the law any more likely bs enforced 1,
such latter precincts.
And agaiu: Because democrati,
States, by organic law, have extended
TO tho legislatures thereof tao right, O.
even made it their duty, 70 enact
local option law similar to ours, III,
Democrat does not therefore stant
pledged to sustain local option, N
the people, by any fair tosl, show de
eiro TO vote ON any important question
] hold II DO the duty OF the luglslato
TO grant thom that privilege.
Had been u member az our Nine
teenth Legislature l certainly wsrl,
hava vnfpu IN M hn,it A ,..ithls :.