, 1886-04-29
Local Option

me S~tltOi VI lAlS ldltA bdS hSSh
called a crank and a fanatic for
signing the petition asking for an
election in June under the local op
ton law. and street rumor has it that
one Of the publishers of the Cali is
to he bounced from his position for
doing a like heretical thing. 1t is
argued that the election Will be a
useless expense, in view Of the Ger
tainty that the vote will be largely in
favor of licence, and there are quite
a number who are sympathizing with
the poor taxpayers already in antici
patton os the grievous burden to be
heaped upon them. This last argu
mcnt amounts TO but very little, as
the expense of a special election in
this precinct viii amount to perhaps
thirty dollars; and that sum divided
among two thousand people will
neither make nor break any one. A
cent and a half each among our IN
habitants is hardly tax gTievous
enough to make so much fuss about.
1t is the principia that we believe IN.
Prohibitionists are OF course in a
minority very much sol but all min
critics have their rights: and il they
wish to stand mp and be counted who
shall deny them the privilege-cven
IN Port Townsend? The money
spent for TIE special election will be
paid out to judges and inspectors
and clerks who live here. 1t Will
not be sent to Kentucky for whisky
nor to California for wine OF beer. Its
sum total viii be far less than that
sometimes spent in 4 single evening
| ny individuals at the gaming table or
over the bar. We have 10 idea that
prohibition will be adopted in this
Icity-and DO not desire that it should
be at this time, principally because
we are quite sure it could not be en-
forced; and that being the case every
reasonable person ought to prefer
the license system which is whole,
some restraint and brings Il revenue
for the benefit of schools and to de
fray expenses of furnishing crimes
and misdemeadors incident to the
liquor traffic II our vote would de-
eide the matter we would say license.
But we believe That the liquor busi-
ness above all others should be sub,
iect to the Will of local voters. We
believe ii right that the citizens OF
each town in the Territory should de
eide by ballot whether intoxicants
shall be sold within its limits or not
We believe that the liquor question is
one for local regulation entirely; and
with this in view, it is the principle
of local option that we contend for.
In towns where majority of the
people wish to prohibit, what state OF
territorial government ought to in
terfere, either for prohibition or
against? Local option is home rule.
It is bringing the source of power
and responsibility as near as possible
to the thing to be regulated. The
traffic is more likely 10 be kept within
decent and orderly bounds if its legal
existence depends upon the popular
will This involves a rule which is
applied all over the United States in
ordinary public affairs. It will be
specially to the interest of reputable
saloon keepers to put down doggeries
and places of Ill repute, in order that
a wave of popular indignation may
not strike the whole traffic and wipe
1t out Of existence. As an abstract
proposition, we believe in the license
system wherever there is q demand
for intoxicants that will be satisfied
unlawfully if not lawfully permitted
to be satisfied.
Intozicants will be manufactured
and sold as long as there are custom
ers to buy, Wo believe that the
proper domain of temperance effort
is that Of moral suasion and in
dividual examples, but that does not
do away with the right of com
munity to regulate or prohibit an
evil. Liquor sellers and extremists
who favor unrestricted freedom fo1
the traffic make a mistake by at
lacking and denouncing as '"crpnks
and fanatics" all who do not fully
agree with them. they are apt,
by being jealous of their privileges,
to provoke opposition that they
would not otherwise have. Better
let it go to fair expression OF
Ipublic choice.