, 1886-08-12
Local Option Law.

-CINI - ~ We hvti4l Atht NA-t !tsW
made more definite and certain, more
effective and less oppressive. We
believe the people should, in 50 far
As Is consistent with the peace and
safety Of the nation, be allowed TO
regulate their immediate domestic
affairs IN the manner best suited to
their surroundings. The sale Of
liquor Is u proper subject for local
regulation under 4 broad, general
law.
We believe the existing Local
Option law Is crude and imperfect,
that 1t Is oppressive, that 1t provides
q system OF prohibition for precincts
where the majority are in favor oE
prohibition, that will not prevent the
sale Of liquor. whiI" destroying ali
revenue from the traffic and IncIeas-
ing local taxation. We fully stated
our reasons for these opinion during
the recent prohibition campaign. 1t
Is not necessary to repeat them now
a. the law stands it makes it posi-
hle for any fifteen irresponsible voters
to force upon the people of any pre-
cinCt. once IN two years. the troubles,
expenses. excitcments and hard feel
iugs Of prohibition campaign. W e
would amend the law so as to pre-
vent this. We would require the pc
:ition for a local option election to be
signed by One-tenth of the resident
tax payers in the precinct. We
would require the county commis-
sioncrs TO compare the signatures on
the petition with the assessment roll
for the previous year, and after sat
lsfyiug themselves that cne-tenth or
more Of the voters who pay taxes on
property IN the precinct had signed
the petition, they should order the
election. and not otherwise.
A. the determination of the pro
hIbilIon question Is one which affects
thPrrvenue and expenses as much as
II does the morals of a precinct, we
would 50 amend the law as to contine
the voting 10 those who pay taxes on
property. Restricting the voting to
property owners would he as fair for
one side aS for the other. Those
citizens who do not pay taxes on pro
perry are very properly excluded
from the decision as questions affect
iug the public schools. The hangers
on around saloons and impecunions
rcformcrS should both be excluded
from the polls when questions OF
local revenue and expenditure are
being decided.
Another amendment we propose is
10 provide that where Il precinct in
cludes an incorporated city and outly-
ing country. that the voting be con
fined TO resident property owners IN
the city, provided, that In the event
of a majority of the voters being fo1
prohibition, prohibition shall be the
rule in those portions of the precinct
lying outside the limits of the corpor
alton. the reason for this amend
ment l. found in the fact that the
city bears most of the expenses
caused 10y the liquor traffic an6
therefore should receive the revenue
II any, derived from it.
We would require druggists whC
are allowed Z" sell liquor for medici-
nal, mechanical, scientific and sacra
mental purposes in precincts voting
Tor prohibition, to pay an annua
hcence fee of 500, and give a S2, ,50l
bond, conditioned TO sell pure liquors
only and closely observe the law
We would make drunkenness, in ;
prol ibition precinct, prima facii
evidence of Illegal sales, and would
require the drunken person, wheI
sober, to testify where, when and o
whom the Intoxicating liquor wa.
procured. In other words we would
frame the prohibition cleuses so a
to punish man who sells, not tn,
man who drinks. The existing Law
provides for p plnishing the man WHIT
obtains liquor under false pretense
not the one who sells to the preten
J der.
We know the liquor traffic make
necessary the greater part of the cos
of maintaining policemen courts ans
/ jails and We believe that it should b.
made TO bear the greater part of tina
cost. We do not believe in making
the sober and virtuous pay the COS
produced by the drunken and immor
al. Experience has demonstrates
that the high license system of deal
ing with the liquor traffic impose
greater restraints upon the trnffi
than any other system yet devised
while it reduces general taxation ant
throws the burden of enforcing tn
criminal laws where il properl,
belongs. We would, therefore, S,
frame the law that the people of an,
precinct should have the option O
choosing between the prohibitory ant
high license systems To that ent
we woHld amend the Local Opiol
Law so as to require the authoritie
of the precinct, IN the event of tn
majority being against prohibition
to issue annual licenses for the sal
of liquor upon payment of $500 ant
the filing of a bond in the sum o
$500 to keep an orderly house ",
would require the same license fe,
and bond of druggists who keeI
liquor for sale in any other name
than upon the prescriptions of prac
ticing physicians.
Believing the liquor traffic to be
/ Legitimate business we would amend
the law as to require 1t to be con
Quoted as openly and publicly as tn,
| grocery business. If the liquo
dealer is not ashemed of his trade
and the liquor drinker is not ASHAMED
to let the world see him drink, they
will not object TO the provisions of
law which make the selling anC
drinking of liquor as public as the
selling and drinking of soda water a
a fountain. Make the liquor traffic
open and pnblic and if the sentiment
of the community is against the ust
of liquor will be confined to those
who do not care for public opinion
and the traffic will be reduced to the
lowest possible minimum.