The semi-weekly messenger., 1908-01-28
IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY

We can't bring ourself TO believe
that the representatives OF the great
democratic party OF North Carolina in
her legislature will, In an extra session
called by the governor to consider rail-
way rate matters. take snap judgment
On the people and by the passage OF an
act take from them the principle OF
local self-government guaranteed them
by the party platform and which prin-
cfple was endorsed and advocated by
every democratic member at the time
OF his nomination ano election.
How many of the present democratic
members OF that body would have re-
ceived his party nomination who in
seeking the same in the summer of
1906 had repudiated the Watts bill
plank in the party platform and ad-
vccated prohibition by act of the legis-
lature? Few indeed. We venture the
assertion that there is not among all
the democratic members of the present
Legislature single member who, while
seeking the nomination or on the hus-
tings after the nomination, advocated
Or declared his intention to support
such a measure as state prohibition
b. act of legislation. Had they done
SO the personnel Of the present body
would be different in many instances
from what 1t is
For the present legislature to pass
such a law in existing circumstances
would be to take snap judgment on
the people and to vioiate party pledges
to the people, and the men who urge
that it do SO are not true democrats
and are playing false to the people
Prohibition by legislative act is all
right If the people want tive are
willing to bow to The will Of the peo-
ple-but that will should first be as
certained, and that Is not accomplish
ed by the wild declarations of a few
fanatics and some demagogues along
with some sincere prchibitionists who
do not ever class themselves as dem
ocrats.
Let this question be postponed until
the people have had opportunity to be
heard. That, and that only we ask in
the name Of democracy.
We endorse the views of the Rocky
Mount Record, as expressed in the fol-
lowing extract from an editorial IN
the last issue of that paper:
While recognizing and appreciatiny
lne 1orce or the argument that such
action would obViate the bite rness
engendered in local liquor fights. and
peneVlng that there is a strong senti-
IHent Tor state prohibition law. The
record is, Notwithstanding, Opposed
10 the special session of the Iegisla-
ture passing blanket state prohibi-
IiOI law UeCduS6.
We know it is un-democratic. If
there IS one principle that is funda-
mentally democratic more than others
1t Is that the people are SOVEREIGN.
and that they shall have a voice In
the making of laws which are to gov
ern their conduct Hence, the ques-
ton should be submitted to the PEOPLE
at the polls. as to whether tIley
should have q state prohibition law
We believe it is dishonest Though
when We say this. as a partisan dem
ocrat we are willing to give due de-
ference to the opinions of those who
differ with The Record and believe
that they are honest in that opinion.
But the democratic party committed
itself to thepresent manner of ,1ealirs
with the liquor question III the last
state convention and went before the
voters with that platform. Until the
party. which Of course does the law
making for the state, speaks through
its accredited representatives at the
next state convention, or submits the
question to a vote Of the people at the
polls it would be breaking faith with
the people, and therefore dishonest,
to legislate a state prohibition law.
We believe it would react on the
temperance forces and cause a loss not
only to the democratic party: but to
the temperance cause as we'll; for In
the hearts Of the PEOPLE there would
be a feeling that good had beeK ac'
compIished in q wrong way and con-
sequently it would 5e cheapened.
->@@@-~-----