Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1886-12-10
PETITION.

| NO SIR you can call N1 crank VI you
pleasc, but we are not in favor OF Prohibi
tionists besicging the present Legislature
with petitions. All that II petition TO the
Legislature can do is TO express to the mem
bers thereof the opinions Of the people
Every Prolnbilioniat in Ohio, who voted
November 2nd, expressed his opinion on
the kind of laws that are wanted In u way
not liable 10 be misunderstood,
What's the use OF saying more when
You have already spoken plainly ?
Moreover, we doubt IL Prohibitionists
can consistently ask for an amendment to
the Dow law. The root idea of the Dow
law is the etaxing-practically the licens-
ing the liquor traffic. We are totally
and unchange,bly opposed to the very
principle on which the Dow law is built
Now II we petition for the repeal OF en-
section of the Dow law do we not by i'm
plication indorse the remainder
We don't see any way to get around
that point and therefore can't see how any
Prohibitions, can petition the Legislature
for an amendme Mt TO the Dow law. To
ask TO have thing amended is an nc-
acknowledgement that after il is amended II
| will be good. Now we Prohibitionsts know
that no amendment; to the Dow law that
left In it "the eternal principle Of taxation
would be good.
Supposing-just for the argument-tlat
Prohiblionists should join In petition to
the legislature asking for certain amend
ment to the Dow law, and the amendment
should be passed, we are supposing this
for the sake OF argument only, you under
stand) would not the persons who had pc
ttioned TO have the law so amended, he
committed TO the law il 80 amended2
We are therefore quite sure that Prohi =
circulating petitions for the amendm ent OF
the Dow law, and very seriously doubt
whether they can consistently sign petit
tion for auch amendment.
The matter OF peltionining for n straight
FOCAL option law is different; Prohibition.
lists have no objection TO local option law
that means option TO prohibit. They are
opposed to local option laws that mean op-
tion to sell. They are opposed TO getting
prohibition in one section at the price of
granting license in another, but to II
straight-out genuine local option law they
have no objection.
But even for the passage OF local OPP
tion law we see no reason why the Prolii-
bitionists should petition. Their sentiment
on the suhj ect are known OF all men. III n
Prohibitionist should sign hundred petit
tions he would not add to the expression
of opinion he made when he cast his bal
lot for prohibition.
Another point. The members of the
present legislature were elected OH plat
forms opposed TO Prohibition. They can't
pass local option law without being false
To the party that elected them. Why
party, ask Republicans or Democrats to
pass temperance laws? They were not
elected for that purpose.
We are not going TO quarrel with those
OF our brethren who wish to petition the
legislature for local option law. We
certainly hope that none OF them will put
their names to petition for an amend
ment TO the Dow law. Let the corrupt
thing alone. Don't indorse 1t by petitions
for an amendment to it.
For ourself we put petition for the to-
tai prohibition of the liquor traffic into
the ballot box on November End. We
intend to put another petition to the saine
effact in the hnlioi-box next Anril If we
live that long, and we propose to keep on
petilioning in that way on every election
day as long as we live, or until the last
dram-shop is driven out of the country.
And we hope by and by TO send petition
mp TO Columbus, IN boots.
Brethren let tile men who voted tor the
Dow law petition. We are prohibit'onisis.
We bow the knee TO no whiskey legisla-
ture, aak no favors of the rum power, we
have no trades 10 offer, there are no COM
promises we will accept. Let us move
forward al along the line and conquer
vic,ory.-New Era.