Morris tribune., 1888-06-27
COUNTY OPTION.

In many localities the advisability
OF enasting u county option liquor
law for the state of Minnesta Is being
considered. Some time ago we were
asked regarding the sentiment OF the
people OF stevens county upon this
question. Instead of attempting TO
speak for them, we have given the
people All opportunity TO speak for
themselves. With the practical
workings Of the present local option
law, our readers are all familiar.
Whether ar not the scope of this law
shall he extended SO that people will
vote upon the liquor question by
counties, instead OF by villages or
townships, the next Legislature will
doubtless be called upon to determine.
Regarding this proposed change, the
following residents of the county
speak as follows. Tie remarks OF
still others will be given next week:
J. L. WALKER: I am heartily In
favor of = county option law.
OLE NICHOLSON: favor such q
change.
r. M. RICHARDsoN: am not in
favor Of county option. I favor al
lowing each town and Incorporated
village to govern the matter to SUIT
themselves.
s. B. SMITH: After candid study
of the subject, am convinced that 1t
Is my duty to say no. am satisfied
it would be compromise with
great evil. AS Christian can not
conscientously vote for county option,
for it would be a compromise with
sin.
A. C. MCKENZIE: I am in favor
of a law which will give the residents
of the county direct vote for or
against the licensing Of drinking sa-
looms. trust there will not be a
saloon or liquor In the state in 1889.
WIN. RIoRDAN: I certainly favor
county option. 1.-THE farmer has a
right to support or contribute to the
support of the paupers and lunatics
caused by drink, he must also have
the right to vote on the license ques-
ton. Deny him the one and he
ought not to contribute to the other.
G. HI. BLAZE: favor having the
saloon question decided by the people
kIo .~o,,arol
ENocH LEAvITT: Yes, am In
favor of Il county option law. With
such law MANY counties can vote
out the saloon and keep it out, before
1t can be done by the state at large.
But let us learn from our friends In
Michigan experience to frame the law
in harmony with the constitution.
ANDREW SATTER: I favor county
option law.
r. B. MCARTHUR: Enphatically
yes,I would favor county option law
for the purpose Of roofing out the sa-
looms, and because the enacting and
putting in force of such a law would
be an aid and not a hindrance to total
prohibition. Had we good county
option law in Minnesota, it would in
a great measure solve the drink ques- |
ton, provided proper machinery to
enforce the same were honestly put in |
operation. An extension of local
option is within the domain Of
practical politics; total prohibition Is
not. trust that our next legislature |
will take hold of this question and
enact county option law that will
be boon to Minnesota. Our present |
local option law is practicallya dead |
letter from the fact that most towns |
and villages are two small and there
are too many petty and diverse in |
terests to overcome. Therefore en-
large the scope Of local option; make |
the county the unit: then let the
ballot decide whether or not the sa-
loon with its communicating infiu-
ences shall remain in our midst.