The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1905-03-04

peOplS OF 1QanO nave rejected Dill
granting citizens the right to de-
eide by vote whether Intoxicating
liquors should be sold as beverages
within their respective political di-
visions. This action may be con-
strued as meaning that a majority
of the people of the State are in fa-
vor of unrestricted liquor traffic, or,
strange as it may seem to the unin-
formed, it might with equal consis-
tency be construed as meaning that
majority are in favor of absolute
prohibition. The fact is, though,
that you cannot tell anything about
the state of the public mind on the
liquor question by a vote on local
option.
The most strict and Jealous tenn
perance people are radically opposed
to local option, and they oppose it
for exactly the same reasons that
local optionists favor it. To illus
trate: Representative Donaldson,
the author of the defunct bill, ar
gued for local option, (frst) that it
is not purity, but a sanitary meas
ure; (second) not a moral, but a
political question, and (third) that
it would tend to improve the char
acter Of the saloon; that is make
the saloon respectable. You see,
the local optionist does not put the
liquor traffic in the category of
crimes or immoralities. He says
simply that those majorities to
whom it is offensive should be per-
mitted to Danish it from their pres.
ence, and those majorities to whom
it is desirable should be permitted
to enjoy it. That looks like a fair
proposition, but it must be con
fessed that it does not exemplify
any principle of the moral law.
The really sound, uncompromis-
ing temperance people argue
against local option in this wise:
The system ignores the moral eIe-
ment in law; it sets up majority
rule as the origin of right. The
very enactment of a local option
law means that the crime side of the
liquor traffic is denied, because
communities, if they choose, are al
lowed by the State to license the
traffic; it hopes to make the traffic
more respectable, hence more toler-
able; it is compromise with the
devil. And, again, local option,
like license, makes revenues local,
but expenses general, interesting
the local community in gaining the
revenue Of license, thus promoting
local s,}f~hncss. II impregnably
fortihes he liquor traffic from with
out, while i Can be assailed only
from within. For'y-four States are
powerless against one. A treaty of
non-lnterleIence Stands with the
world outside. Finally, local op-
ton scatters and disintegrates the
temperance forces, prevents unity
of purpose and effort and thereby
effectually initiates against State
and National prohibition.
Now, you see, for anything we
know to the contrary, those Fl rep
resentatives who voted against local
option may have correctly repre-
sented constituency of devoted
prohibitionists. We believe some
of those members did indicate that
they would vote tor straight prohi-
bition but could not bring them
selves to compromise with vice.
However, that may be, this much
is evident. the advocates of local
option have no rightful claim to
moral superiority. They PIT them
selves in the attitude OF cheerfully
meeting sin half way and shaking
hands with it. At any rate, that
is the way orthodox temperance
people look at it. Local option
and high license are much of
the same order. The latter
provides that intoxicants may be
manufactured and sold by any