The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1904-05-15
Or. BISHOP WRITES.
Local Option as Seen by . Former
Wsll.known Astorian.

Wsll.known Astorian.
The following letter, from the pen
Of DR.. J. s. Bisho,, formerly OF As
toria, IL published by request Of the
w. c. T. U. The ladies' desire that
the people Of Astoria should consider
both sides OF the question referred to
before the time arrives for voting. DIR.
Bishop says:
with your consent / would like to
make a few remarks concerning the
leading editorial ip the oregonlan Of
April 80 regarding the proposed local
option law. The editorial in question
is so fallacioLs In argument and in,
correct as to statement OF facts that
some have expressed their belief that
It's source was not that from which
the usually able editorials originate.
while l can not attempt to complete
refutation of the article would like to
call attention to few OF the leading
errors.
II seems likely that from now on the
proposed local option law is to be the
leading issue Of the campaign, for in
the matter OF Office 1t seems necessary
for the republicans to consider only
what their majority shall be, and there
is no open opposition evident to the di-
rect primary law. Hence 1t is well that
every voter be correctly informed upon
the issue under consideration. His best
way Is to obtain a copy Of the proposed
law from the county clerk or the just
ice OF peace Of his precinct, who have
them for free distribution, and study
1t for himself.
The oregonian makes the statement
that this law would enable the pro-
hibitionists to call an election in any
precinct every year. or indeed many
times each year." Section Of the law
says that the first elections may be
held on the first Tuesday after the first
Monday Of November. 1904. and. there
after only on the first Monday in June
Of any year" Hence there can be no
indiscriminate calling OF elections at
the whim Of few enthusiasts
The oregonian complains that be-
cause II prohibition carries in any pre-
cinct, county or subdivision Of q county
no further vote on the matter can be
taken for two years. This It claims Is
one-sided and unfair. I suppose 1t
considers the present laws. under
which It is very difficult to get bind
ing expression of public opinion by
ballot on the question. as quite fair. In
fact 1t is not long since 1t made the
statement that the present laws were
quite sufficient The aim Of this law is
to drive out the saloon, and the pro-
vision mentioned as unfair is designed
to give any district that may vote
prohibition sufficient time to make a
test of the new conditions. Two years
is not too long time for such trial.
We don't need time for trial Of con-
ditions under license, for in most of
the states we have already had years
OF experience under them.
Further, the premise on which the
oregonian bases its editorial is false.
1t states that mo person is bound by
morals or should be forbidden by law
to abstain from the reasonable and
proper use OF thing because some
other person may abuse it." One of
the functions Of government Is the
protection Of the rights of its citizens,
and where the abuse of thing in
fringes on the rights of others 1t is
quite within the province Of law to
step in and prevent such infringement,
especially when 1t is so markedly detri-
mental to public welfare. as Is the
abuse of liquors. Furthermore this
right Of prohibition has been and is
recognized by courts Of every grade
even to the supreme court of the
United States, This proposed law does
not force prohibition on any district,
but simply gives the citizens there the
privilege of exercising that right III
they choose to do 30.
These are only a few OF the many