Mississippi leader. (Jackson, Miss.) 1892-1895, 1894-02-06

acted much bricfcr statute, that
would have put an end to every
saloon i'll this State. Why did il
not do it. This is the why: Git
izcn G. b. Galloway, and some
other Prohibitionists, were willing
to stick to "local option" and
leave the question open for bien-
NAL contests in every county in
the State, rather than settle the
pcrplexing question for all time.
SO to laud our s1ocal option
law comes as natural to DR.. Gal
loway as it does to a man to
praise his own child. He is in
large measure responsible for its
existence.
| have never been able to con
ceivc that it is possible for IA
thoughtful Christian man to be-
lievc that "local option is the
proper method for State or ma
ton to adopt in dealing with a
business that leaves nothing in its
awful track, except wrecked hui
mainly, despoiled hopes, and de
vastated homes. "Local option
is an invitation to the people to
do just what our highest judicial
tribunal has declared they cannot
do, barter away their morals. 1t
is the scape goat for lwant -to-be-
popular politicians-thc profes-
sional placchunter. | do not
know of Il thing that has been
done by "local option methods
that could not, and would not, have
been done in a straight forward
more manly way. The educa-
tional work done under the law
could have been done without it.
The truth is, it was the advanced
education in favor of PROHIBITION
mot a " local option law that
secured from unwilling political
bodies our first and the present
"Iocal option" law. These meas
urcs were simply tubs thrown to
the Prohibition whale, that Leg
islators saw would soon ovcrturn
their political ship, unless some
thing was done to turn his course
and direct his attention elsewhere
to secure the result (Prohibition)
for which he clamored. DR.. Gal
loway and many others ascribe to
method credit for what the peo-
pie have done. People with con
victions express them. If not by
one method, then by another.
The people have, county at time,
voted the liquor traffic out of this
State, save in eight or ten coun-
ties. All of these counties would
vote it out the same day, if the
opportunity were presented. If
this isn't true, then it is not con-
viction, but something else that
wins Prohibition victories under
the "local option methods, and
if this is true, what becomes of
the matchlcss splendor of the do
cal option law!
DR.. Galloway's arguments in
support of "local option liquor
law, will with equal force and
vigor, support "local option" as
to prostitution, Sunday laws, gam
bling, polygamy, lotteries, horse
racing, or any other thing pro-
hibited, Internationally by our
law. He does not favor, | am
sure, "1ocal option on any 9th
er question, involving the moral
welfare Of the people, but he ia
vors ''local option as the meth
cd of dealing with the prolific
source of all crimes and offenses
against the best interest of socie-
ty. Why is this? | know why
politicians favor this method. 1t
is because they do not want to of
fend the liquor power, which an
honest performance of their duty
would result in. In other words
they think more of their own and
their party's success than they do
of protecting the homes of the
State against the ravages of the
saloon. | would greatly prefer
not to think so, if it were posi-
Bile, but | am compelled to believe,
with many others, that if DR..
Galloway was less "a Democratic
partizan, he would think vastly
less of "local option on the Ii
quor question and consent to il
no sooner than he would to the
same method of dealing with other
questions involving the morals OF
the people. In 1888, while edi-
tor of the New Orleans Christian
Advocate, he bewailed "Fathel
Mathews mistake" in not clinch-
-. -, ,,orL -, S.tba land Of tht