Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1900-11-02

poA y III IL OldIC nave S~uuSdVOIcu
to hedge on the question of prohibit
ton. 1t is an issue that neither party
cares to handle without gloves, for the
reason that too radical action either
way threatens to ALLEVIATE a consider
able element of the voting population.
AT the last republican state convention
at Grand Forks, the regular commit
tee on resolutions did not insert a pro-
hibition plank, and a prohibition en-
t%husiast, seeing the omission, lugged
the plank in and nailed it into the
platform on the floor of the
ton. Then another delegate INDUCED
in a gentle sarcasm by inserting a
plank calling for the enforcement of
all laws on the statute books, partic-
ularly those in the penal code. This
mild hint was taken in good part, both
pianks were inserted in the platform
and everybody was happy. When
the democratic convention met, the
prohibition question was given the
marble heart, and neither prohibition
or resubmission was mentioned. The
republicans appear | o nave a little the
better of the %fUsionists therefore, on
the matter of prohibition.
AS soon as Governor Fancher was
renominated he was sounded on yile
prohibition question by Miss Preston,
president of the state w. C. T. u. Mr..
Fancher told her he stood on the re-
publican platform. Doubtless the
prohibitionists would like to have
carried the inquiry further, as they
did when Fancher was first nominated
at which time they asked him fatty
If he would sign a bill for the creation
OF the office of temperance commits
sioner, if such a bill should pass. Mr..
Fancher replied that if such a bill
passed, with proper safeguards regard
ing the expenditure of state funds, he
would sign it. The bill came up but
diA not pass. 1t may come up again
next winter. If it does, it is likely
to go into the waste basket again.
North Dakota has too many expensive
institutions already to add Il depart
ment for the special enforcement of
the prohibition law, with the expendi-
lures for evidence, prosecutions and
other details that would be involved.
The matter Of prohibition will with
out doubt come up in the legislature
next winter. Already some legisla-
tive delegations have been instructed
to vote for resubmission, and the pro-
hlbitionists have made the continue
ton of the law an issue where they are
IN force. To repeal the present law
would require an amendment to the
constitution, which is too slow to suit
the resubmissionists. But the repeal
Of the penalty clause, removing the
punishment for the violation of the
law, could be accomplished by any
legislature where the resubmissionists
are in the majority.
Such a bill passed the legislature
several years ago. 1t was known as
the White bill, and Major White, re-
publican candidate for governor, has
been wrongfully accused of it's intro
duction. 1t was, as a matter of fact,
introduced by Alfred White, a repub-
lican member of the house from the
Thirty-first district, now an %independ-
ent candidate for the state senate. The
bill was vetoed by Governor Briggs,
who vetoed at the same time a bill
creating the office of temperance COM
missioner. 1t is a curious legislature
that Will, at the same session, pass a
bill creating a department for the bet
ter enforcement of the prohibition law.
and then a bill wiping out the penalty
for violation of the law.