The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-04-20
Local Option.

To tho Editor of tho indianapolis Journal:
Some of the thirdparty Prohibitionist have
been laboripg with moro zeal than wisdom or
success to prove that local option would not sue
coed in Indiana, but that their plan for prohibit
ton would, and this in the face OF the fact that
local option is succeeding in Southern States
that have, for generations had the worst reputa-
ton for drunkenness, as WELL if not better, than
prohibition has 10 Iowa or Kansas-States that
have always been in the front rank of the tenn
perance reform movement The prohibition
laws of Iowa Or Kansas would ltGe utterly futile
in Georgia or Kentucky; indeed such law
would likely lack onethird enough votes to
make it law, If submitted to the people, while
good. strong local-option law would make pro
hl6ition success in every county in Iowa or
Kansas, where the majority of the voters favored
such reform; this fact alone, as now being dem
onstrated in these States ought to be enough
TO convince every friend of the cause that local
option is the best, surest and quickest way to
obtain prohibition.
One objection is that county like Marion in
this State, might vote to license saloons, and
thus put them in the villages of that county,
where they now do not exist, this is nonsense,
for each township would vote upon the question
separately, as also each ward of city, and thus
make the people responsible for their own sa-
looms, OF the absence of them.
In counties like Hendricks where there are no
licensed saloons now, it 10 quite silly to say
there would be under local option. If the ma
Jority of the people in that county, under the
present laws can prohibit saloons from getting a
Incense, would not the same majority do the
same thing under more favorable aws2
The plea that local option would make saloons
lawful amongst the lawless and worst classes
and unlawful in the best society is very lame
argument The fact is chat no law will ever be
enforced in this country unless majority of the
people are in favor of 1t. If majority of the
people of any State were in favor of horse-steal-
ing that crime would be both common and pop
ular. So with the liquor traffic; suppression will
only come with majority that favors suppress
sion.
Local option will drive the saloons from every
community where there is the necessary major
!ty, and in cites where tina. majority could not
be found, saloons would pay heavy tax.
Under the third party idea of prohibition the
counties and townships that could prohibit the
traffic would have to endure the curse because
the whole State could not give the majority they
want.
Surely il this county, Hamilton, could pro-
hibt saloons from doing their shameful work
here, 1t would not be wronsing the citizens Of
Marion county because they were less fortunate
10 possessing the same moral power, but to force
Hamilton county to suffer from the dire effects
OF drunkenness because Marion is in favor of
whisky ls surely deep wrong that no good citi
zen would intiict upon any people
Local option will drive the evil from far more
than half the State; then we can more easily
Danish it from the rest The larger cities
where it will likely linger long after its fright
full presence has disappeared from the villages
and towns, would finally succumb to the in
creased prohibition force gathered under the
successful work of local option throughout the
State.
After all, the third-party Prohibitionist seem
to be quite as anxious to defeat the Republican
party asto close the saloons; hence. as Republi-
cans favor local option, they will oppose 1t.
j. A. HoUsER, M. D.
ARCADIA. Ind, April Is, 1886