Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1889-04-18
4 RAD BREAK.

There can be little doubt that at tn,
time of the spring election very decided
majority of the voters of St. ClairSvlll,
favored the repeal of the anti-saloon or
dinance. The reasons have been stated
in these columns heretofore and ii is no
necessary to repeat them. Since the elec
tiOn decided change of opinion has taker
place, and the opponents of the ordinance
are largely responsible for that change OF
opinion. If they had been content TO let
the question of repeal take its course IN
the usual order, the probabilities are the
ordinance would have been repealed at the
regular meeting in May: but they were
impatient of delay. No sooner were the
new members sworn in than repeating
ordinance. which had been prepared and
was in the pocket of Councilman Riley
was introduced, read the first time, crowd,
ed to a second reading, and disposition
shown to hurry the repeal through. But
a hitch occurred. The motion to suspend
the rules and put the ordinance upon its
second reading failed. and an adjourn
ment was had until Friday evening. This
occurred on Tuesday evening of last week
Friday evening but five members were
present. Mr. Murdaugh being kept away
by the disaster to his mill. Some cOntro-
versy arose over motion to approve the
record of Tuesday evenings meeting
Mr.. Lawrence, the Solicitor, suggested
that should not be done, for the reason
that Tuesday nights meeting had not yet
adjourned. Councilman Riley took issue
with the Solicitor, but the latter gained
his point. When reports from standing
committees We're called for, Mr.. Riley
(whO is chairman of the committee on or
dinances) reported back the repeating or
dinance. and moved that it be read sec
Ond time. Mr.. Nc Bride, of the commit
tee. said he had not been consulted. Mr..
Murdaugh, the other member, was absent
Chairman Riley was compelled TO reluct-
antly admit that neither had been con-
suited by him. and that one is not ma
jority of three. The motion failed. Mr..
Riley was disappointed and somewhat
indignant, and moved an adjournment to
Saturday evening, which prevailed-Riley,
Seidwitz. and Norris voting aye. and Nc
Bride and Humphrey no.
Saturday nights session did not last tif-
teen minutes. a motion by Humphrey
to adjourn was sustained, only Riley and
Norris voting no.
This ends the matter until the first
Monday of May.
The opponents of the ordinance have
overreached themselves. and the prOba-
bilities now are that it will not be repeal
ed. The boys appear to be daZed at the
turn things have taken, and now talk of
submitting the matter directly to the peO-
pie. Very well: so be it. But if an eX
preston of opinion by ballot is sought, on
the ground that individuals have been CO.
creed into signing remOnstranceS, the wo-
men must be permitted to vote, as well as
the men. All agree that there is no au-
thOrity of law for such an election, there
fore women would have us much right to
vote at it as men. No one will dispute
the first proposition, and no man would
be disposed to deny the right of women
to express themselves upon a question
which concerns them so deeply. Council
has no authority to submit such question,
no more than it has to submit the ques-
tion of making a loan to the Turkish gov
ernment.