The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1886-03-20
SATURDAY. MARCH 20. 1886.

It Is not our purpose at this time to
deliver temperance lecture nor do
we propose to indulge in TRADE Of
abuse against liquor or liquor inter.
ests. Neither is it our intention TO
advocate the advantages which have
accrued to such vast number of our
people by reason of the Local Option
law. The fact that we have such
law, and the mode by which it is pro-
posed to get rid of that law, is the sub
ject with which we mean to deal.
This law, where 1t is in force in Gar.
rett county, was adopted by major
ity of the people, solemnly adopted
at the ballot box. Being police reg
ulation. as we understand it, it would
have been manifestly unfair to have
put 1t in force in. any other way. 1t
is always fair that a majority of the
people should decide such question
as Is involved here. The people of
GrantsyilIe and others voted in favor
Of liquor, and the people of Oak land
have no quarrel with them. We con-
cede their right to decide for them
selves. But have we not the same
right? When we have decided against
the sale ofliquor is it right for another
district to come in and say we must
have license. or in other words that
we don't know what we want
Again, this law having been voted
into being by the people, is it fair or
right that it should be arbitrarily re-
pealed without submission to the PEG.
pie? Is it the province of our repre-
sentative to set at naught the will of
the people? Are they, at the behest
of Grantsyille or Accident or some
other district, which has voted against
local option, to say that the people of
Oakland shall not have the benefit of
such a law, although majority of
them voted for it and thus put it in
force? 1t seems to US that such high
handed proceeding would be an out
rage upon common decency, and we
predict that any man who assumes
the responsibility of supporting such
a measure will be speedily convicted
at the bar OF public opinion. If ma
ioriiy of the people in Garrett county
want the license system we cheerfully
submit, and it would be the duty of
all law-abiding citizens to submit
gracefully. But the people will not
willingly submit to the repeal of this.
law in the way proposed. Our repre-
sentatlves in the Legislature are not
the masters of the people. They are
public servants, and must give an &C.
count of their stewardship. They
have no right to defy the will of the
people, nor have they right to turn
the minority into majority. The
people of Oakland and other districts
have spoken upon this subject, and
now three gentlemen propose 10 say
If, this bill be passed, the minority
who were defeated at the polls shall
control the matter. We certainly
think this would Re an arbitrary ex-
ercise of power which would be I'M
lawful, and which would not be tol.
Grated by the courts. AS we have
said we would not complain if law
should be passed submitting the Ques-
ton of repeal to the people. nor would
we COMPLAIN if majority of the peo-
pie decided to repeal the law, but we
solemnly protest against an arbitrary
repeal without first submitting it to
the people. 1t does seem to US that
the proposition to repeal the law and
then submit it to the people after
wards to say whether they want ii
repealed or not is. to say the least, a
singular proceeding. The people I'M
derstand the proposed law. They are
not being deceived by its hideous de-
formity. They realize how foully
their rights are being trampled in the
dust. and they believe that retribu-
tive justice awaits the perpetrators, If
a wrong 80 foul should be done them.
-.