Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1901-06-10
TIE WEEKLY TRIBUNE.
HOW MCCLURE WAS UNDONE.
Editor Marshall Mcclure Of the

HOW MCCLURE WAS UNDONE.
Editor Marshall Mcclure Of the
Minot Optic has been recognized as one
of the most fearless and uncomprom-
Using enemies of the prohibition law.
He has Numbered at it with logic,
5pelted it with sarcasm, scored it with
invective and riddled it with ridicule.
But a week or two ago readers of the
Optic were thunderstruck to read in
its columns a brilliant defense of the
prohibition law and an equally brill
liant arraignment of the licensed sale.
of liquor. Its appearance was the
signal for thanksgiving among all the
prohibitionists of the state. All along
the Mouse river people stood with
hands uplifted and with mouths agape,
~speechless and wondering what had
converted Mcclure. Had he, like
Saul of #Tarsus, been confronted with
the spectre$of the prohibition he had
SO long assailed, and had it spoken to.
him in the storm and said: MAC, Mac,
why ~persecutest thou me?" Surely
nothing less potent than this could
have won him over. But some there
We're who looked upon the Optics
change of base with doubt, and in
clined to the belief that somebody had
been playing the devil in the Optic
office while Mac was away. And so
the fact. transpires. In this weeks
issue Of the Optic is the explanation.
Mcclure says:
Last week we had occasion to run
down to the Twin cities expecting to
return in time to write up the editorial
for the Optic. Owing to an unforeseen
delay it was impossible to do So, or
even to take the time to write and send
by mail. Not wishing the paper to
appear Short we dropped a line to
our friend Major Murphy asking him
to Notwithstanding, and he did.
Taking advantage of the situation he
proceeded to write a very able editor
ial ON the subject of temperance,
which of itself would not have been
considered particularly objectionable
had he not gone far as to have
changed, or rather attempted to
change, the polieyssof the Optic, so far
as it relates to the prohibition law of
this state. The fact is, the attitude
of the Optic, SO far as the prohibition
law is concerned, remains the same.
We regard the law as al dishonest one
and a disgrace to the statute books of
b state; for the reason that by its
i provisions a person in order to secure
liquor is compelled to pnger himself.
Not only this: he is compelled to buy
+ larger quantities than is necessary
to meet his Immediate requirements
and sometimes TO his pecuniary disad-
vantage Besides the people who sell
the liquor are not required to keep
good liquor or to pay a cent into the
city or county treasures for the priv
ilege of dispensing the stun. The law
has already nearly bankrupt two or
three towns and counties without do
ing q particle Of good, unless it was to
enrich such men as Andrew Lindelie.
Temperance is all right, and the Optic
believes as sincerely as any paper in
the state that intemperance is All
WRONG, but at the same time regards 1t
in the light Of an Individual matter.
q NO more legis1ate a ma into
g state Of perfect sobriety any more
than 9 a legislate him into bus
mess The Optic is still against the
prohibition law as If now reads
However great Will be the disappoint-
naent to the prohibitic.ists CT the state,