Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1888-10-12
SPEECH BY E. +. RITTER.
\ GREAT ARGUMENT FOR rHE Ma.
TlONAL PROHIBITION PARTY.

The Issues Of the Presidential Campaign
Logically and EIoquently Set Forth
Inc Duties of the Patriotic and Con.
scientious Voters.
Gol. Eli +. Ritter recently delivered an
aole speech at indianapolis, from which
we make the following extracts:
Now VIC have come to a point. with all orr ex.
peiiehce OF 100 years, when we are considering
TINS system Who favors it? want TO prove
trial is thoroughly and without reserve Endorsed
ny Ihe iquor traffic itself. In Ohio, where they
nst w., no license law and cannot have it because
=, a, vns constitution OF that STATE where they
niNe u condition OF absolute free whisky, and
nave mad for twenty-five years at least-in Ohio
Two years ago the liquor interest in state Con-
ss de IN hat t On the 10th day Of April
state OF Ohio would stand by their old principle
se advtocatins nothing but license law" 1t is a
sNaten IN tne states Mhsre they have license
al IT'S might nnd main. l want to prove to YOU
that the liquor traffic is not only in favor of IL
&c utter this loO years Of experience but it
license and high license, but it is In favor of
license high license and local option. There
are three States in this Union more in fact. but
three to which coll your attention, Nebraska
LIMOS, and Missouri Each of these States hus
mgh-!cense and local-ortion law.
Inc: Inc ilquor traffic in the State of Nebraska,
WiSnout an exception SO 1ar as any public ex-
preston is concerned has uniform ly agrsed that
the present system OF legislation in the State of
Nebraska should be maintained, Now I refer
to Expressions given by Peter D. Ilor, President
OF the Willow Springs Distilling Company, of
Omaha, feb., in which he says: II do not think
Ghat nlgp license lessons the quantity of iuuor
used, but places it in fewer ana better hands,
with better regulation" 1t is not the number
OF places where Intoxicating liquors are sold
that we complain Of 1t is the amount and the
fact that liquors IRE sold. 1t is the liquor and
the.amoun. of it that causes the disaster If
enc large place can sell as much as ten small
ones because OF Its capacity, then one arge place
can do all the damage that ten smaller
places might have done. This man further
says: AS to the trade repealing the high license
law, If tho question WIS left to it. do not think
so far as my acquaintance is concerned that it
would do so. hnve IN extended acquaintance
throughout the State, and bel eve if it were
men whether it should be high license, no Ii
cense, or low license, that they would almost
universally be for high license" Now read an
extract from more of the dealers in Nebras-
ka-from letter written by Metz Bros, doing
business OF Omaha, Neb.--brewers High IL
cense has been OF no injury to our business. In
There is the secret. ave ara positively certain
that were it not for our present high license
law, Nebraska to-day would have Prohibition"
Local Option is the road to Prohibition. In
Nebraska, where they have tried such u law
more than six years. they say it is the scheme
certain that they would have had Prohibition
today but for high License and Local option
Hear what he says further: .sPlease under
stand that our High License is also q Local
Option Law" read another extract, from
lllinois-from letter written by Dick Bros
Quincy Brewing Company, Jan. 6. 1e8s-just q
under our laws" cannot stop to read all these
documents. might detain you for the next
two hours with such testimony, but with these
samples call your attention to the fact that
on behalf of the liquor traffic in Nebraska and
Missouri and Illinois, where they have High
License and Local Option, in favor of maintains
ing that system of legislation.
know they talk in indiana just now very
largely about Local Option and what can be ac-
about that while it is being considered by our
citizens. Tho recent Republican State Conyen-
ton declared in favor Of regulating and control
ling the liquor tratic on he Local Option princi-
pie. We havo tried that experiment in Indiana.
In 1858 the Leg sla; ure OF Indiana passed Local
Option act, IN act providing that the people of
the townships, at an election duly called, misht
determine by majority vote whether or not tbs
sale of liquor should or should not be licensed.
Under that law they held numerous elections in
Indiana, and think i'll every town hip in this
county exc pit Center perhaps. A case came up
under that law to the Supreme Court of the
State in 1858. tits known Us the case Of Maize
me aa ana BE- sound IN Ind
CONSTITUTE nality of Local Option, with our Con.
stitution then just exactly it is now so far as
Supreme Court OF indiana, by a unanimous con-
Gu, renee of all the judges in the opinion to
which call your attention. carefully considered
rot only the statute but the history leading up
to the constitutional provisions, the evils they
| SOL ght to remedy tho principle on which they
Were founded, and held thrt Local Option in
| Indiana is uuconst tutional and void.
Afterwnrd, in 1862 utter the first decision had
been made and thoroughly discussed 10y the
legal profession in Indiana, and several elections
| had tnken place. t ere came another case in the
Supreme Court of the State of Indiana entitled
| Neihmeier VS.. The State, found i'll I. d. Re-
| ports, page AS4, decided jan. Il, 1859. III this
| OF Maize vs.. The State which I have already
cited and saws this
"T, at branch OF the decision which holds so
| much of the act us submit s the que ton OF
| license 10 q vote of the people of ths townships
| to be unconstitutional and void, we think is ell
| tirely correct"
| say right here and challenge every lawyer in
| the State OF Indiana to tho contrary, that the
Maize case, decided thrty-hve years ago on our
Constitution as it is now, has mover been criti-
| cised, has never been doubted, has never been
oyerruled. 1t has been expressly affirmed and
referred to with Endorsement once SINCE referred
to large number Of times, and at no time ques-
| toned.
Men tell me that decision on the Baxter law
| was given by our Supreme Court, holding that
| local option was constitutional. call your at
tention to the case to which they refer 1t is
| found i'll AZ Ind. Reports, pnge SAT. In that case
| the Supreme Court of indiana expressly holds
that the provisions of the Baxter law do not in.
| volve the question of local option. The Supreme
Court in this last case refers to the old case OF
| Maize VS.. The State, and says that the case de-
| cided there is entirely different from the case
| arising under the Baxter law. The majority
| spoken of in the Baxter law, of voters in tbs
/ township or ward, is the number required to be
| signed to the petition, and not IN election pro
| vided for. So thon, challenge the people o.
| the State OF Indiana to consider well this p'o
position witch they are Gales unon co support
in favor of local option as proclaimed by q grea
political party. Such action has been unconsti
| thirty-fve years in Indiana.
Then what does O great political party mean
when it proclaims to the people OF State that i
| proposes, by M unconstitutional method, tx
give .slief on this a,lcstion-proposes TODD just
| what the Supreme Court OF our State has salt
| and repeated cannot be done? Whit does tina
( mean? A convention filled with lawyers, man.
| of the most distinguished lawyers in our State
| men familiar with our decisions of the highes
| courts men familiar with the legislation of thu
| State-what do they mean by the proposition
| pie? If it is through Ignorance then you dar'
| not trust the welfare OF our State to such inca
| pacity If it is q trick and deception, then yot
| should flee from it all the more. If this PROPOSE
| ton were carried at this election and O Legisla
| ture elected upon it were to pass a Local Optlol
| measure that should come before the Supreme
| Court, am justified i'll saying that court would
| hold that act to be unconstitutional Ant
| then they would saw TO you men who have sup
ported the party: I'VE did all we could" Ant
| they would smile ut the Liquor League and say
| Didn't we bent them after ala"
Gen. Hoyey, the nominee for Governor on tina
! ticket, was i'll the Constitutional Convent1ol
| and supported the provisions referred to. Ill
| knows, or ought to know, just what the pro
| visions of our Constitution contemplate, JUS
why they are put there. The reasons given b.
4 1t. l~.~A Np