Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1908-11-12
A County Unit Law.

HAN0Nhh oAoANNS9 VI NAAo5OaAA
provide for county option on the
liquor question outside of mum
icipalities of $500 or more popu-
lation. Public sentiment all over
the state is demanding that the
exception be removed and a
straight county unit law enacted.
The brewers and spigot-twisters
are strenuously opposing this pub
lie demand. Why? Only one
reason can be given, i. Q. they fear
the verdict of the majority of vo-
tiers in most of the ia counties OF
the State. But majorities rule in
this country. Why should the
liquor business be excepted from
this principle?
A county unit law will drive no
saloonist out of business. 1t will
simply give the voters of each
county the right to govern them
selves on this question as they do
on others.
Taxes r assessed by counties,
criminal court expenses n paid
by county taxation and infrmaries
are maintained by county taxes.
1t is a recognized fact that the
larger per cent. of these expenses
are the result of the liquor bust
ness. Why, therefore, should the
voter be denied the right to say
whether this additional tax should
be saddled upon him?
If municipalities of over $500
and more are to be exempt why
should not the taxpayers of these
municipalities in counties other
wise dry be compelled to pay the
liquor cost of the courts and the
keeping of the poor?
If county taxation is to be I'M
form, county option should be
the same. But we are told that it
is unjust to drive men out of bust
ness when they had invested their
money their rights would be in
fringed upon, they say. What
rights has the liquor traffic in this
country? The Federal Supreme
Court, the highest judicial body
of the land, says none but suffer-
ance. 1t said:
In the case of Crowley VS.. Christ
ensen, 1877 U. S. Sc, the Supreme
Court said:
SPY the general concurrence of
every civilized Christian commu-
nifty there are few sources of crime
and misery in society equal to the
dram shop, where Intoxicating
liquors in small quantities are
drunk at the time and are sold in
discriminatory to all parties ap-
plying. The statistics of every
state show a greater amount of
crime and misery attributable to
the use of ardent spirits obtained
at these retail liquors saloons than
any other source. y The
police power of the state is fully
competent to regulate the business,
to mitigate its evils or suppress it
entirely. There is no inherent
right in the citizen to sell intoxi-
eating liquors at retail. 1t is not a
privilege of a citizen of the state
or a citizen of the United States.
AS it is a business attended with
danger to the community, it may,
as already said, be entirely pro-
hibited or permitted under such
conditions as will limit to the ut
most its evils" That has never
been reversed.
Since that decision no man has
invested in the liquor business
without knowing that he took all
the risk himself. He knew that
each legislature could justly put
him out at anytime and he could
have no just complaint. He took
the chances. He realized that he
could remain as long as the peo-
pie suffered him to, but that he
had no rights.
1t is not a question of rights SO
far as the traffic is concerned, but
it is a question of whether the peo-
pie Of a county shall be denied
their rights or not.
Sheriffs, commissioners, Judges
and other officials are elected by
counties. The vote of the county
is not separated from the mum
icipality. The county majority
may elect all these officers against
the wishes Of the municipality.
The city and village must submit.
The farmer trades In the village,
sends his family there for market,
why should he be denied the same
right CONCERNING the saloon tbat