The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-02-15
PEOPLE WITH VIEWS.
Mr.. MattinglS Endorses the Local OPP
ton Eenture Of the BILL.

ton Fenturc of the Bill.
To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
The letter from Mr.. Stechhan, in Mon
days Journal, ought to be read by every
member of the Legislature because it shows
how d man holding his views presents un-
answerabe arguments for local option. [
congratulate him on his excellent presenta-
ton of the fact that the liquor traffic can
be best regulated by every community to
suit it's own taxes and needs. A system
of regulation suitable to the wants of one
big city might be found entirely
unfit to the ideas of another
big city, or to, a smaller city, a town,
village or a rural community. IL the peo-
pie of q given township, ward city in
Indiana declare by majority expression
that they do want saloons the people of
the rest of the State should not force
saloons on them. The sacred right of local
self-government, recognized in all enlight-
ened States and enforced by appropriate
laws in so many States of the Union, by
the Republican party, demands just such
a system as Mr. Stechhan's letter shows,
perhaps without his intending TO do so.
Nicholson bill has to fall beneath the OPP
position created by those who are fearful
o most she rood alone ' he local option cause
The bill raises two issues: First, shall the
saloon men be compelled, Ike all other
the people of each district named in the
bill have the right, to govern themselves
in the liquor traffic? Any Republican who
can place himself the negative of either
ought to state his reasons
The talk about passing temperance laws
being bad policy for the party is either
folly or cowardce. The question is, what
will be the best for the whole peorle? IT
such laws are for the benefit Of the
people are passed. the future has no terrors
for the party; The passage of the Mckin-
in h1 W q did therefore abaQ-
don protection. We do not seek power
merely that a certain set of men may hold
fat offices and draw the salaries thereof
but to Iegislate and administrate for the
people The Nicholson bin is not a pro-
of a Single Prohibitionist favorng it. No
saloon keeper can oppose the bin without
thereby confessing that he wants to violate
the law. Shall the mere desire of one in
dvidual to set up saloon at any place be
guaranteed as against the rights of the
people of the com nunty who do not want
the saloon? This is the question which
the Republican legislators are 10 solve. 1t is
hardly supposable that. they will prefer
multitude. EZRA MAIIlNGL1.
Washington, Ind, Feb. Is.
Mr.. stcchhan Defines His Position.
To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
Ny motives having been impugned by
some parties for the part which l have
taken in the liquor controversy which is at
present SO prominent, 1 believe it but just
to myself to define my position in this mat
ter To begin, / have no interest directly
or Indirectly i'll the liquor traffic; l very sell
dom even patronize a saloon, nor have any
particular love for the average proprietor
of q drinking establishment. / look upon
this question from different standpoint al
together than is generally taken when this
matter is preached Lack of studying the
question thoroughly is probably the cause of
the almost general habit of placing all the
crimes on the calendar to the credit of
liquor consumption. when as a matter of
fact careful statistics compiled with view
of aScertaining facts in relation to this mat
ter show conclusively that such is not the
case The minor offenseS, which probably
carry workhouSe sentences with them, fire.
quently can be traced TO the drink habit,
but crimes such as lead TO imprisonment in
pententiaries are but in very isolated cases
chargeable to liquor imbibing. My motives
are higher than simply the question whether
a man can obtain drink after IL o'clock or
not; il is business question with me, and
one of principle well, which prompts me
10 take an interest in this topic. Expert
ence has proven that in all States where
prohibitive measures have been introduced
(and the Nicholson bill Is practically n pro-
hibitiye meaSureb, business has gradually
but surely declined and taken flight to other
adjoining States. where prohibitive meas
urss were unknown. ASK the travelling men
who have within recent years visited the
border cities of Kansas, for instance, and
they Will tell you that all of the Kansas
towns once prosperous have de terioated and
the Missouri towns have grown in proper
ton, which, when you consider that even
the farming community refused - tS&ds in