The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-08-27


ton Of the party that year in this Ian
guage: Politics and legislation must
be kept free from the influence of the
saloon. The liquor traffic must obey
the law. We favor legislation upon
the principle of local option, whereby
the various communities throughout
the state may, as they deem best,
either control or suppress the traffic
In intoxicating liquors"
Is not the platform this year in en-
tire harmony with that declaration,
and does the announcement of the Re-
publican position this year vary In the
least from the principle enunciated in
1888?
Adherence to the Principle.
But the Republican party was not
content with this declaration Of policy
and in 1890 again announced their ad-
herence to the principle Of local option
in this language, which may be applied
with entire propriety to the situation
in Indiana today: 1.-The efforts of the
saloon to control political parties and
dominate elections must be met and
defeated The traffic in intoxicating
LIQUORS has always been regarded as
proper subject for legislative restraint,
and those engaged in 1t should be COM
PEELED to obey the law. We favor leg
islation upon the principle OF local OPP
ton whereby the various communities
throughout the state may. as they
deem best, either control or suppress
the traffic" Does this seem like an
evasion Of the subject? Is there any
attempt in any of these platforms to
escape from the principle Of local OPP
ton, or to announce any policy at war
with that principle?
And thus, as far as platforms can
commit parties to a definite line Of &C
ton, the Democratic party has ever
been opposed to all legislation on this
question, while the Republican party,
not only in its platforms, but in the
laws 1t has enacted, has clearly de.
monstrated it's belief in, and it's adher.
ence to, the policy of local option.
Pursuant to these platform declara'
lions, and in obedience to public senti-
ment on this question, the Republican
party in 1895 passed two laws looking
to the further restriction of the liquor
traffic First, the Moore law, permit
ting a city council to define residential
districts from which saloons might
thereafter be excluded, and, secondly.
the Nicholson law, which provides,
among other things, for the method of
remonstrance by townships in the
country and wards in the city, whereby
a majority of the voters can prevent
an applicant from selling intoxicating
liquor in such township or city ward
for the ensuing two years. These laws
were passed by a Republican House
and by a Republican Senate, and In
both bodies a majority of the Demo
cratic members voted against both
propositions, so that these laws are
purely Republican.
The Nicholson law proved unsatis
factory after some years of trial, be
cause it provided only for a remon
STRANGE against the particular individ
ual making the application for the Ii
cense, but did not prohibit other per
same ward from Immediately applying
thus keeping the township or ward in
incessant strife by the circulation OF
remonstrances.
Increased Public Sentiment.
In obedience to increased public
sentiment on this question and desir
ing to voice in legislation the earnest
demands Of the majority of the people
the legislature in 1905 passed what is
known as the Moore law, as an amend
ment to the Nicholson law. This act
provides that remonstrance may be
circulated in a township in the coun
try or ward in the city against either
a specific individual applying for Il
cense or against the business as such
II a majority of the voters in said
township or ward sign the remon
STRANGE against the individual, thai
particular person Is prevented from
selling intoxicants in said township Oh
ward for the ensuing two years, but II
the remonstrance be against the bust
ness, and il majority of the voters ir
said township or ward sign said re
monstrance, then the business is ex
cluded from that township or ward TO,
the next two years. Like previous
legislation on this subject, the Moore
law Is a Republican law. A majority
Of the Democrats in the House opposed
1t, and a majority Of the Democrats II
the Senate voted against it, and it tool
Republican votes to place 1t on the
statute books.
This law has been SO utilized tina,
today IN Indiana out OF a total OF 1,016
townships. $50 are now dry, while so
county seat towns have taken advan.
tage of its provisions to rid them.
selves of saloons, and innumerable
city wards have exercised the same
privilege
Thus the Republican position on this
question is clearly defined, is entirely
consistent and unbroken, and there
has never been at any time any at
tempt at evasion or equivocation on
this subject.
Democraeys Backward Step.
This year, after more than half q
century of unbroken opposition to leg
islation of this character, the Demo
cratic party in state convention assem-
bled. declared in favor of local option