The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1902-05-09

I
speaking in America, AN the forms of
territorial subdivision that exist are
/ there either because OF their present
/ convenience and utility or because they
were once convenient and OF utility
and custom has eugendered conve-
/ uiencc and utility which, if the form
| were to be devised anew, might be bet
! ter met by some other form.
! In California striking application
of the principle of local option is found
in the organization of irrigation dis
tricts. In Illinois an equally striking
! Illustration is found in the organization
of drainage districts. In the states
bordering on the lower Mississippi
River, still another illustration is found
in the organization of leyee districts to
promote works for the protection of
localities from inundation In all these
an object is to be attained which can
not readily or perhaps at all be attain
ed by the ordinary and existing divis-
ions such as counties. Certain locali-
ties have purposes to serve or duties
to meet which are not felt by other
| localities. The statutes providing for
! these objects are therefore 50 framed
as to enable the people of any locality
| to meet these duties and accomplish
these purposes which they have IN
common, but which are not common to
the whole people of the state and in
many cases are not common to all the
people of a county. A part of the peo-
pie in two or more contiguous counties
may have an interest in common which
is not shared by all the people in any
one of the counties. County Organiza-
ton would not therefore meet the re-
quirements, while the application of
| local option through another Organiza-
/ ton formed for that special purpose
would. Hence many if not most of the
! states have statutes providing the re-
/ quisite organization.
Local option, as applied to the liquor
traffic, is fashioned on the same prin-
/ cipes General license regulations APP
| ply to the whole territory. The people
/ of a particular locality, a district, an
apana a block in a city, may feel a
particular interest in the question Of
saloon location i'm their midst. They
which are different from those of other
localities different from those Of the
rest of the territory in general. Local
option steps in, in the same way that it
does ii the question were one OF irIiga-
ton, drainage or a levee system, and
provides means for the people OF the
given locality 10 ascertain its own
sentiments and put them into eXecu-
ton
Local option as applied to the liquor
traffic is a feature of the legislation
of nearly every state in the union
kentucky, which in popular legend is
the home of the mint juiep and the hot
toddy, has a large number of counties
in which by local option, saloons are
prohibited. Peoria County, Illinois,
which distils more high wines than any
other county in the United States is
within the sphere of local option, so
that any town or village in the county
can declare it's sentiments on the sub
iect of saloons. Even Chicago, wicked
as it is Teputed to be- can at any time,
or any locality in it, can, at any time
declare it's sentiments on the subject.
Local option is a principle that per-
Vades legislation throughout most Of
the states.
4 But while local option is thus really
a principle of wide and varied applica-
ton both in England and America the
term local option has acquired a
much narrower meaning, and as 1t is
most frequently used means the appli-
cation of the principle to the liquor
traffic The history of this application
is not uninteresting. At common law,
originally, the sale of liquors, at least
by inn-keepers and ViCtualers was COM
pretended in their general business,
requiring no special license. AS senti-
ment against the indisCriminate and
habiJual use of liquor rose and sought
means to limit ana discountenance 1T,
the system of licensing arose. With
the further development of anti-drink
sentiment into efforts to prohibit
the traffic, come the demand for
the application Of the principle of local
option. 1t was cOntended that if the
majority of the people of any city,
county, town or village did not want
the liquor traffic in their midst they
had a right to say so and to prohibit
it. The majority of the people of a
state might not oppose the traffic, the
argument ran but the people of Civ
en- locality might want to be free from
it, and if they did, they had a right to
free themselves from it, giving the
same right of opinion and action TO the
people of localities which did want the
trattlC. Inc temperance IBnI 50 lar as
it involved legislation or political aC-
ton, was fought along these lines for
years. But finally the principle became
so well established as to cease to be an
issue. The liquor traffic accepted 1t as
a part of the conditions of its business.
Efforts to repeal local option laws
ceased.
Then came one of those strange re-
actions which so often appear in the
history of legislation. The temperance
movement represented by the prohi-
biuonists having become strong in GER
tain states abandoned their advocacy
and arguments for local option and be-
gan to declare and work for state pro-
e hibiuon which Of course was incOnsist-
S ent with the theory of the right OF
localities to decide the matter for them
selves. The outcome of this is thai
local option" exists in practically al
r but the prohibition states.