Mexico weekly ledger., 1908-02-20
LOCAL OPTION.
whlts EdItor. Mexico. No.

n NJ WhAtes Eo4toHf AeAteSs A0
Sweet Springs. Feb. 18th 'os. Dear
Sir;-The advocates OF the saloon ar
que that we cannot get along without
the revenue from the saloonI to run
the Municipal government, and TO pay
for public improvements. 1t does not
seem to enter into their minds that
there is any moral question involved
in q partnership with the saloon, for a
money consideration. A Christian
people cannot stand for the saloon and
perform their duty to either God or
man. We have no right to consider a
money proposition In connection with
the saloon. We cannot do so without
compromising with The liquor trafic
and that destroys u influence for
good. The world points the finger ssof
scorn at the professed christian who
votes for the saloon.
These who stand for the saloon
seems TO loose sight OF the fact that
from . true financial standpoint. there
is nothing init for the city that H.
censes the saloon. From $3.50 TO $1,000
is about the usual amount paid for
saloon license, and $4,000 is conserva-
tive estimate on a saloon business for
one year. That means $4,000 for each
saloon, taken from the legitimate bust
ness Of the city and blown in,oT squan-
dered. worse than thrown away and
does NO one any good except the liquor
trafic. This money is a tax on the
people and is paid over the bar, by
people many Of whom need the money
for the support OF their families. Is
not this too much money to pay for
the pittance, paid the city by the
saloons. Would 1t be considered a
matter Of good economy In any other
line o: business? And that is not all
It costs the people. The prosecution Of
criminal for crimes committed while
under the influence Of liquor sold by
the saloons, often costs many times
the amount Of the license money paid
the city by the saloons.
Some argue that local option Will
have q bad influence on business, that
1t will drive trade to the wet towns.
We notice that has not proven true
where Local Option Is in force. And
II q few old boozers should trade at
the wet towns, that does not prove
that where q majority OF the people In
a City or County favor Local Option
they should wait two years hence to
be driven to state wide prohibition
FaIong with st. Louis, Kansas City and
. few more big towns that are too rum
soaked to 60 dry.
When the liquor traflc is destroyed,
the great amount Of money invested
In it, and the money the people are
nov paying for liquors will go into
the legitimate channels Of trade and
both city and country will prosper as
never before.
Others argue that, under q free gov
eminent like ours, Local Option is q
liberty. They claim the right to
make intoxicating liquor, the right to
drink 1t and the right to sell 1t. We
claim there is no such right under a
free government. The liquor traffic
has no legal right to exist. AS good
Judges Of law as we have in the Unit
ed States have ruled that the state
has no right to license the sale Of in
toxicating liquors. 1t exists simply
because the people by sleeping on
their rights have tolerated it. All
good people agree that the liquor traf-
tic has proven itself detrimental to the
public good, and anything that is de-
trimental to the public good, should
have no place in q free government
1t Is a usurper Of the rights Of the
people, and an outlaw and should b
driven from this fair land Of ours.
The Brewers Distillers and Saloor
keepers have had their day and 1t Il
now high time that the
Women and Children Of the lei they
have debauched have a chance, fol
better and happy home, better Cloth
ing. better food and better Educa'
tion.
We want to say to the voters Of
Missouri and especially to those In the
Counties that have not Adopted Lo
cal Option, the time has come for
test Of your manhood. Are you COINS
to be freemen In a free COUNTY or vii
you bow to the will Of tie rGm powel
and still allow the ftot Of GSs Saloor
keeper to rest on your nesss. Yol
can best answer thiiI question by vot
ing TO drive the accursed traffic from
both County and State.
James A. Morrison.