The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1885-09-02
a dwo1ld like to submit the following

| Second-Is ii not true, and concaded
by every Intelligent and truthfrl nro-
hioltionist, thst In Kansas, and other
Republican prohibition STATES. that
the law Is enforced in those coun,
ties which favored the ensctmentp
| suppose Texas was to adopt a general
prohibition law, and leave the prose-
cutting machinery in the hands Of
county msjorities, where 1t now is,
| what attention would be paid TO the
law oy many counties in Texas, whose
people, like those OF Comsl county,
rarely drink to excess, bat who make
wine and beer, and use 1t on their
tables just as many people in this
county use coffee or milk? Why have
the people OF the State, exercising
their sovereign rights in convention
assembled, subdivlded the State into
counties and precincts, and given
tnem courts OF their own selection,
with jurisdiction ovsr those offenses
ciassed as misdemesnors? Has not
Dallas county the same right, from
the standpoint. OF political Justice, to
say now much Tarrant county shall
spend on her roads, or public build
| lnSs, Us she has to say that Tarrant
county, whatever the opinion of her
voters may DO, shall not allow any
liquor sold In her limitsY Is II not
true that whatever evil damage or
| expenses arc caussd by LIQUOR are con-
fined to the localities where sold and
drank, and il this ia true, should IL
not be y matter of local regul atien? II
the selling or drinking OF LIQUOR is a
crime in itself, why do counties, vita
the same social and intellectual aver
| age OF citizenship, differ 30 widely
in their opinions on the question?
Wine and beer contain a compare
lively small amount OF alcohol, and
produce but little, II any, drunkenness,
and why should they be legislated
against on the nsme basis and with the
sans severity AZ alcoholic liquors?
Why, in France and Germany,
where tins crowded condition OF popu-
lstion and low wages, make it more
necessary for the government to look
after the personal habits of the people,
nave the governments found il to the
bsst interests of the governed to on
courage tho use OF pure vino and beer
as means Of Encouraging the use OF
stronger liquors?
suppose the people amend the consti-
tuition 80 az 20 positively prohibit the
sale OF any kind OF liquor and they
mud that the law ia imperative and de-
sire change. Won't it be impossible
for msjority 10 change the constitu-
ton, ~ II rcQnirea the representatives
OF two-thirds OF the people to submit q
constitutional amendment? II the
present constitutional provision for
local option IN stricken cat, would IL
not be more Democratic to leave tho
question to the Legislature, 80 the ma.
Jority of the voters from time 10 time
could determine the proper policy2
Third-Why IL it that in Georgia, with
the same local option feature, as tho one
under which we operate, and with the
Same Democratic majority there has
been no political agitation, and yet,
local option has bsen adopted in all
but IL counties, and the law enforced
wherever adoptedf Who are doing
the most for the cause of temperance,
those communities largely Democratic
who have voted against the sale of
liquor In their own precincts and who
are willing to allow the same exercise
OF freedom and Judgment to other
communities, or Mr.. HoMau
and other Republican sgitators,
who denounce local option RS a failure
and Insist on making 1t State pollti.
GAL issue, not for the good results to
the cause OF temperance, but in order
that their party may 20 into powerf
Ii there Is no difference in principle
or well established results betwee y
local option and State prohibition,
Why is 1t that tho voters OF largely,
and in some cases unanimously, DEM
Ocratio precincts aud counties have
voted against the sale OF liquor in their
localities, and that in nine essea out
OF ten it is only men who are not Dem
ocrats who sgitato the question as q
p Official ne,to be decided by the Stats
atlarge?
Fourth-Why 10 1t that the prohibl-
ton agisetors invariably denouuce
local option, and demand general pro-
hibitiou, when we have such counties
40 Rockwell as living testimony to its
success, In localities where it is in &C.
cord with public sentiment, and we
have such communities as Leavsn-
worth, Kansas, living monument of
the failure OF State prohibition, in
communities where it IL not in accord
with public sentiment?
Fifth--On political question Of this
kind, which Is at best experimental,
should we have an inflexible constitu-
the majority? Would it not be moro
in accord with good common sense and
Democratic principles to allow the
70 logislate On it from
time to timer Much greater
otfenses than this can ever be msgni-
fed into, were not touched by the con-
btiuution, but left 10 each Legislature
to deal with; and is not q legislative
as much representative body as a
constitutional convention?
Sixth-The sovereign people OF the
State have delegated this, and other
powers to the precincts and counties
and the government has been the gamer
by this policy, aud has it not been in
accordance with the Democratic
declaration, "the nearer you get to the
people with government, the better
1t is?"
Seventh--New Jersey and several
others States have tried general pro-
hibition and abandoned the policy
because Intellectual. Some counties
have for the same reasons, or because
the msjority changed their minds,
abandoned local option. In view Of
these facts, Is it right for ministers of
the gospel to attempt to use their min.
isterlsl influence to have their congre-
cations advocate and vote for an in
flexible constitutional rule?
Eighth-The prohibition question Is
one with many ramitications, and in
spite Of numerous experiments, Ia
sill, in 4 chaotic state, and would 1t
not be best to consider it In all Its
bearings before getting too hot over
the CorI cot sOlutiOu?
LAY MEMBER.
Hard Times.
Whila ,nnnou ia nl0ea Wauna and