Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1907-06-27
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM.
a Few Facts Plainly stated BY one
Of the Loading Prohibition Of
North Dakota.

AhO tOtlVWltlk IIOul
Prof. II. II. Aaker, prohibition candi-
date for governor in 1901, will prove
interesting reading:
"Over in Minnesota the anti-slloon
league and prohibiiionists, and espc-
cially the latter, are indulging i'm il
great deal OF criticism, and justly so,
because the legislature refused to give
the state local option by counties,
whereby 1t would have been possible
for probably more than three -iourths
OF the state to free itself from the
licensed saloon. 1t is claimed that
more than fifty per cent Of the repre-
SentativeS and senator's to the lcgisla-
ture were pledged to vote for local op-
tion, but the legislators forgot their
pledge under the party lash and turned
down the wishes Of the people. Such
. slap at self-gOvernment is hard to
bear, aud 1t does not surprise me that
they are loud In their protest against
such usurpation OF power aud such to-
tai disregard OF republican principles
OH which the government was found
cd. They claim that as this is a gov
ernment 'of the people, by the people,
and for the people,, the people have u
right to vote on the saloon question
or amy other question 1t seems that
the people ought TO have the right. III
they don't, this country is republic
In name only. The temperance people
of Minnesota, who are in the great
majority, refuse to be governed by the
saloon element, which Is in the minor
ity, and justly so; and they are now
traveling up and down the state argu.
ing the absurdity of the situation
that the people should be refused an
opportunity to vote on the saloon
question. The prohibitionlsts VI
Minnesota are unqucstionably right
in their contention: but what seems
peculiar To me is that there is Il ten
dency among the prohibitionists Of
North Dakota to take just the oppo-
site position as regards the Initiative
and Referendum, because there is u
possibility that the prohibition law
might Ike submitted To Il vote of the
people. 1t seems to make . difference
whose OK Is gOred.
Tile prOhibitiOnistS of North la.
kota cannot afford 10 take that po.
sitiOn after our brethren In other
states for the past forty years have
been loud in their claim that the peo-
pie have "a right to vote on any ques-
tion. Ii the temperance people claim
that right, they must coDcede that
right to the resubmission element.
81 consider the prohibition law Of
great Importance: but the Initiative
aud Referendum is III far greater i'm
portance. The legislature Of North
Dakota could have made the prohibit
ti0n law imperative every session
since its adoption; but 1t has rather
chosen TO strengthen the law nearly
every session, which shows that pro-
hibition is not q settled question, but
that we have voted for or against the
law every two years
"Would it not be better under the
Initiative and Referendum to settle
the question for at least ten years at a
time? ResubmissioD under the Ref
erendum law cannot possibly come for
six wears, and by that time prohibition
will have been tried for about twenty
two years, and, II the law cannot com
mand q majority vote at that time,
the prohibitionists have 40 right To
complain. We must be fair even II it
goes against our wishes. Ii we are
not fair, we hurt our cause by antag-
onizing those who are guided 10y the
right and fight for the right