Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-01-21
PROHIBITION.

| Continued from F9rSt rage.
| Once officials were elected by Republicans by
one and three majority. Now it is SO large as
| to be out of all danger.
No. do not think the influx of oil producers
and their employees to the county since the local
option vote will have any effect. Some of them
are drinking men, but many of them will vote
for the amendment. They have got used to
doing without their beer and whisky since To-
eating among US. The dlstl!lng contingent
| from along the river exert no influence what
ever in politics of the county, nor did they ten
years ago. One of their number was defeated
! in his candidacy for Prothonotary one year.
A Friend to Disti1lers.
An hour after this interview 1 happened
to meet a farmer at the Court House. He
belongs to the eastern part of the county,
and gave me very breezy little talk with
the conditions that l would not use his
name. Possibly he was afraid of his social
surroundings. He said:
lam friend of the distillers. l sell one of
them considerable rye with which to make
whisky, but that Is not why am opposed to
constitutional amendment. shall vote against
it because 1 believe such amendments are
aimed at personal liberty and unjust to the in
terests legislated against. Now, few years
about passing the law prohibiting the sale and
manufacture of oleomargarine, 1 wrote to our
Representative at Harrisburg giving notice of
nv protest at least. That may seem odd to
you, when you remember that about all the
farmers, and especially those of this county,
were crazy for such an enactment That law
was framed with selfish motive, and although
had the sale of as much butter stopped by the
popularity of oleomargarine as any OF the
farmers, I interposed my voice against my own
interests because it was wrong to abolish any
honest industry and not compensate the loser.
Now, look at this liquor question In the same
way. 1 am a strictly temperance man, but dis
approve of the principle of this movement.
Republicans and Democrats Both.
L. McCarroll, Esq, Chairman of the
County Democratic Committee, when inter-
viewed said:
l should think the constitutional amendment
proposition will be adopted in this county, by
what majority though L cannot predict. 1 ex-
pect the whole vote polled in June will be
light. 1t would be heavier if the decision of
the matter had been left off until the Novem-
ber elections, but suppose the leaders feared
its mixture with politics at that time, and
guess it would have become party measure if
put before the people at general election. 1t
will not be partisan question in Washington
county under any circumstances. / have
knowledge of many Democrats who will vote
for the amendment, Our long abstinence from
licenses here has been the means of educating
the people to prohibition. Nobody here thinks
of wanting liquor sold.
Not a Political Question.
W. S. Parker, Esq, the present Chair
man of the Republican County Committee,
said:
see no reason WHY the amendment should
not be adopted in this county. As it is not a
political question cannot venture opinion
as to the majority. 1t will not shape itself to
party lines, but will be contended for on its
individual merits.
"Has there been any contest in politics
here lately that brought in the liquor ques-
tion as an issue?"
"Yes, to certain extent When the
present Judge McIlvain was elected fight
was made upon him under the belief that he
would continue the policy of the judges to
refuse licenses. There were other issues, too.
McIlvaine's majority was 500, while the
balance of the ticket had from ZOO to 300
majority. The Republican majority in last
falls election was, 1 think, 1854"
The Prohibition vote in Washington
county for st. John in 1884 was 1888. In
1888 this had increased to 420 for Fiske.
For to-morrow's issue will send you the
sentiments from another county.
L. E. sToF1EL.