Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1898-11-17

|
out Canada on the question of prohibi-
I ton. The result was approximately
| known within a day or two, but the Of
fetal declaration has just been made
. through the regular channel of the
clerk of the crown in chancery. This
declaration shows that a very light
vote was polled, and that the majority
in favor of prohibition is but 1884, a
majority so small that, considering all
the circumstances of the case, it prac-
tically amounts to a defeat.
The manner in which this question
has been treated is exceptional among
Canadian political practices. The ref
erence to the electorate for the purpose
OF ascertaining public opinion re-
specting a proposed law has hitherto
been unknown. Parliament is the only
legislative body in this country, and
issues are threshed out and the verdict
given when members of the popular
branch Ct parliament are elected. But
the taking of vote upon the question
of prohibition apart from and wholly
independent of a parliamentary cleo
ton was brought about by the agita-
ton of the prohibitionists for the past
25 years. Upon every government since
confederation they have rolled miles
Of petitions, and, having few stanch
supporters in the house, they have per-
mitted few sessions to pass without
prohibition debate. The answer of the
late Sir John Macdonald to the prohi-
bitionists was that prohibition would
be granted when the country was
ready for it, and so the petitioning
went on.
About eight years ago the then con-
sentative government discovered a
temporary quietus 20 the annoying
question. A commission of inquiry
was appointed. At it's head was Sir
Joseph Hickson, who had just retired
from the general management of the
Grand Trunk hallway. The commits
sion sat in every city and in many of
the towns of the country, hearing evil
dence respecting the liquor traffic, and
for and against promotion. 1t finally
made report, blue book, the size of
an unabridged dictionary so bulky no
one ever attempted to read it, and so
confusing that should a reader be
found he would require years of study
to draw any conclusion from it's con-
hicting pages. In the mean time the
prohibitionists ceased to trouble par
lament or the government and waited
for the report.
The general elections were not far
distant, and a convention of the lib
eral party was held in Ottawa. A gen
eral platform was adopted and among
the many promises made was that,
should the party come into power
the question Of prohibition would be
| submitted to the electorate. At the
last session of parliament the Deces-
sary legislation was secured and ac-
cOrdingly the vote was taken this
autumn. Now as to the results. The
total number of names on the voters
list is 1928, $40, and the total vote
polled was 543,O42, or A per cent. OF
the votes polled, 278, 463 were yes,
and 4,574 no" thus giving a ma
iority of 1884 in favor of prohibition.
Every province except Quebec went
that way, but the majority in Quebec
against prohibition nearly wiped out
those on the other side. The affirma-
tive majorities were as follows by
provinces: Ontario, 1924; Nova
Scotia, 29,216; New Brunswick, H.
1856; Prince Edward Island, 8,315; Man
itoba, 9,412; Northwest, 3,4l4; British
Columbia, 983. The negative majority
in Quebec was 94,015. And yet in
Quebec only per cent. of the total
electorate on the list supported prohi-
bition; in Ontario only 20 per cent; in
Nova Scotia "a per cent; in British
Columbia only 16 per cent. Taking the
voters list of the dominion as a whole,
only % per cent. of the registered
voters went to the polls and marked
/ their ballots in favor of prohibition.
And yet some of the prohibitionists
claim that this is a sufficient moral
support to enable government to pass
and enforce SO exceptional law.
The campaign preceding polling was
conducted with general Indifference as
far as the great majority of the people
was concerned. The prohibtionists
did most of the talking, while the work
of the liquor interests took the form
of a still hunt. The protestant clergy
as rule were on the side of prohibit
ton There was among others one
notable exception, Rev. DR.. Grant,
: principal Of Queens university, King
ston. Although a thorough temper
ance man in practice and teaching, he
. was opposed to prohibition, believing
that the time had not come for the
successful carrying out Of such a law,
and that failure in its operation would
throw back the cause of temperance for
| 80 years AS to the effect of the vote
upon politics, it will on the whole be
very little. A few jealous prohibition
lists are demanding that the desired
measure be introduced at the next ses-
sion of parliament, but the sound sense
of the great majority Of the people is
against this, feeling that such law
would be but a mockery, when, having
been given fair chance, prohibition
lists failed to poll more than % per
cent of the votes Of the dominion.
Under existing conditions temper
ance sentiment has made great prog
ress during the past 20 years, particu-
larly in the rural parts The village
hotel is no longer the popular place it
once was, and drunkenness is con-
fined to a few incorrigibles in each
] neighborhood. In the greater portion
tof ic