Mississippi leader. (Jackson, Miss.) 1892-1895, 1894-01-09
BISHOP GALLOWAY AND LOCAL oP-

On first page of today's LEADER will
be found an interesting interview by
Bishop Galloway in which he reviews
the progress and success of Prohibi-
ton in Mississippi under local option.
While cheerfully-yea, joyfully re
cognizing all that he claims for the
achievements of local option, we can
not repress feeling of profound re-
greet at seeing him still clinging to this
temporary make-shift, loath to take a
single forward step-even advising
against it-instead of planting himself
squarely on Prohibition as a righteous
moral principle, utilizing the strength
which past victories have yielded and
demanding the outlawing of the liquor
traffic once for all by statutory and
constitutional enactment.
Bishop Galloway's position is bun
die of Inconsistencies. The protracted
discussion between the Bishop and ex-
President Davis is still fresh in the
minds of many. That controversy grew
out of the amendment campaign in
Texas in 1887, Bishop Galloway cham
pioning the cause of Constitutional
Prohibition and Mr.. Davis finally plant
ing his batteries on local option. The
Bishop, 10y the superior strength of his
position, rather than by superior ability
-splendidly endowed as he is intellect
ually-won a signal victory over his
distinguished opponent and drove him
vanquished from the field. How in
credible that we should find him seven
years after that memorable controver-
sy, practically standing on the local
option ground then occupied by Mr..
Davis and refusing to go forward in the
carrying out of the policy he himself
advocated
The Bishop now, with many others,
seems to have quite forgotten to put
into practice what he frequently as
serted and all understood at the begin
ming of the Prohibition movement in
Mississippi,-that local option was not
designed to be anything more than a
temporary eXpedient- "a mere stepping
stone to statutory and Constitutional
! Prohibition. Though never right on
sound moral and governmental princi-
plies. to the low State of public
sentiment on the subject, the ubiquity
of the saloon and the abject subserv-
iency of legislators to the liquor pow
er, it seemed absolutely essential at
| first to accept local option in order to
get little standing ground on which
to fight, and on which the merits of
Prohibition might be practically tested
as an object lesson. How different the
situation now, when, after years of eff
fort and much needless delay, there
are only, as the Bishop says, seven or
eight license counties left. In one of
his letters to Mr.. Davis the Bishop
quotes the dying lament of Father
Matthew the great Irish Temperance
apostleJ that he did not clinch at its
flood tide the reform he had wrought,
by legal Prohibition. Let the Bishop
beware that he does not live to lament
his own folly III not clinching his pres
ent boosted advantage by statutory
and constitutional law.
In his interview, the Bishop compli-
ments the present dramshOp law and
says sit is based on a correct princi-
pie" If he means by this that it is
right, as an abstract proposition, that
majorities should control in public af-
fairs, we agree with him; in a Republi-
can form of government all laws must
rest, primarily, on the consent of the
governed. But if he means that it is
right and correct in principle" to sub
nit to a popular vote proposition
that carries in itself the seeds of NOR
al degradation and death, as local
option does, we say nay, nay. The Su
preme Court of the United States, in
Stone VS.. Mississippi, has made de-
liverance which exactly covers the
point. 1t says:
'No Legislature can bargain array
the public heath or public morals. The
people themselves cannot do 1T, mach
less their servants. Government is or
gdHiGed ariH q viec to their preserUd-
ton. and cannot DIGEST itself Of the
po,rer to proUide for hem."-202 L.
s., SIG.
Bishop Galloway has always contend
ed and still contends and rightly, too
that Prohibition is prominently
moral reform. Would he claim that
submission to popular vote can sane
tify thing morally wrong? Is the
moral aspect of the liquor question
affected by the size of the popular
majority for or against the saloon
We have not so learned the moral code.
If it is morally right to have local
option on the liquor question, will the
Bishop tell us why it would not be NOR
ally right to have a local option Sun
day law, local option on gambling, con-
Quoting lotteries, horse racing, prize
fighting and the brothel? Local OPP
ton is simply license in the alterna-
tive. 1t means Prohibition for a part
of the State and dramshops, with all
their attendant evils and demoraliza-