St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-10-12

| ludt paper ull6u WIFI piV-
! hibition literature and appeals to the
farmers to vote for the amendment.
They seem to have followed the adj
vice. The Farmer says that while the
Republican party submitted the amend
ment it did not "raise voice" in North
Dakota for its success, and it doubts that
it can be trusted now to provide the
legislation that will save the victory
from being turned Unto inglOriOus de-
feat"
NORTH DAKOTA'S ELEPHANT.
There was apparently more surprise
in North Dakota over the adoption Of
the prohibitory amendment than else
where. Even the friends of the cause
had, as it appears, very little hope of
| success, and there was hardly any of
the enthusiastic work so noticeable in
South Dakota. In the latter the Repub-
lican convention, the alliance, and per
hapS other organizations Endorsed pro-
hibition, and actively worked for its
! embodiment in the constitution. Its
success was conceded by the opposition
generally, and the majority is not larger
than anticipated. But in the North the
Republican convention evaded the dl-
rect issue, and the Democrats opposed
favoring the stringent license law al
ready in force. There were a few
speeches in favor Of the amendment,
but no indication of popular inter
est. The sweeping majOrities against
prohibition in the shape of county OPP
ton the yeaI previous were taken to be
conclusive as to the voting this year.
With this situation, the majority for
putting prohibition in the constitution
looks much like a freak. There is no
difficulty in accounting for 1t. 1t Is
stated by well-infOrmed parties on the
ground that it was verdict by default,
or neglect, the opposition not deemtng
any effort necessary. In popular slang.
they were ''knocked silly" by the story
OF the ballot boxes. The prohibition
lists seem about as much surprised, and
don't exactly know whether to be glad
or sorry. If they have INDUCED in bon
fires, or the good ladies of the w. G. l.
U. have drunk extra cups of tea over
their achievement. the fact has escaped
observation. Very few Of the men Of the
towns are entirely sure the condition
that confronts them is suspicious in the
outlook. The towns have, with no
notable exception, voted largely against
the amendment, While the country dis
tricts, with almost no direct interest in
the question aside from some share in
the income from county licenses, have
imposed the feature on the state. But
they have the elephant on their hands,
and the disposition of it is the puZzling
question. The constitution requires
the legislature to vitaliZe the pro-
scriptive declaration by laws that will
prevent the manufacture in the state of
any kind of liquor, or the importation
of anything by corporations or indi-
viduals for sale, barter or gift. The
large brewerleS, that constitute. per
haps, the most considerable industry of
several of the towns. must cease their
amber flow and become nearly value
less. The party who carries a bottle of
beer into the state and offers to share it
with another will become amenable to
the penalties Of the law demanded by
the constitution. Practically much de-
ponds upon the action of the legislature.
tits no new thing for such bodies to en-
act laws not calculated to meet the os-
tensible purposes Of their creation. In
this case there may be stipulatiOns so
oppressive, and penalties so rigid as TO
deter all who would attempt to enforce
them. 1t does not appear that any con-
siderable attention was had to this sub
iect in the selection of members of the
legislature, and no statement appears
dis to the disposition of the lawmakers.
There are, however, some of the most
positive prohibitionists among them,
ana it may be presumed that they will
follow the usual line of Legislation in
prChibitory states. The question then
becomes full Of practical concern as to
the attitude of the towns toward the
law. The present requirement. is more
rigid and comprehensive than that of the
local option enactment that caused SO
much confusion and social demOraliZa-
ton. However overwhelming public
sentiment may be against the exclusive
policy, it is in the constitution ana can
only be eliminated by processes taking
years of time. Most of the towns have
had a vexatiOus but brief experience
with local option prohibition. They
don't want it as a settled condition.
Secret clubs, with their allurements to
inebriety and carOusals, and the low
and obscene haunts of illicit traffic, are
not the programme that conduceS to the
moral and social welfare of place.
They lead the young into vicious ways
and breed disregard for law. The pru-
dent and discerning will avoid the towns
where these are the permanent eondi-
tons. Gen. GRANT said the best way
to secure the repeal of bad law was to
rigidly enforce it. This may be the
better way with constitution also. The
situation is one of serious concern tOthe
prominent towns, and demands eonsid-
crate and judiciOus treatment to avert
more than temporary retrOgresSiOn.