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


termine the will of the people on this
question?
The provisions of the existing law
are well understood, its operation is
entirely inexpensive, it has been tried
in many cities and townships in the
state, and people understand it; 1t at
fords an easy and costless way of as
certaining the wishes of the majority;
it has been upheld by the Supreme
Court of Indiana-why change it?
Why alter the method after these
years of successful trial?
The reason is so evident that it need
but to be stated to satisfy any reason
able mind. This plan was purposely
designed by the men who dominated
the Democratic state convention in or
der to weaken the existing law on this
subject, and take backward step in
legislation on this issue.
A Double Purpose in View.
For the first time in many years the
Democratic state convention in Indi-
ana was held before the Republican
state convention. Why? They came
together, and under the influence Of
certain leaders. turned their backs On
the whole history of their party on this
question, renowned all previous party
declarations on this subject and plant
ed themselves on the local option plat
form. Why did they adopt this course?
Evidently with a double purpose
first, to lead the temperance element
in the party, an element well repre-
scented in their convention, though in
the minority, to believe that the adop-
ton of the local option plank was
forward step for their party; and, sec
ondly, to satisfy the brewery element
in their party that, even though that
plank in their platform commits them
to local option, yet, in comparison with
the existing law, 1t is not a forward
step, but is in reality a backward
movement So far as the Democratic
party is concerned, it is step forward,
but so far as the people of Indiana are
concerned and the laws of Indiana are
concerned, it is a facing toward the
rear.
A part of the double wish Of these
leaders is being gratified, for there is
not today a brewery or a brewery
saloon keeper in Indiana who is not
vigorously at work for the Democratic
ticket; but it remains to be seen
whether or not the other element in
their party can be satisfied with what,
after careful analysis, must appear to
be only false pretense.
Attempt to Undermine Law.
At the time the Democratic conven-
ton met, one week before the Repub-
lican convention, it's members could
not possibly foresee what action on
this question the Republican conven-
tion would take when it met. They
could not possibly foretell that the Re-
publicans would demand county local
option, but they did know that the Re-
publican convention would indorse the
existing law. Therefore the plank in
the Democratic platform on the ques-
ton was aimed at the existing law If
the trainers of that document believed
in that law, why did they not simply
indorse it? They knew that four-fifths
of Indiana was now dry, and that, I'M
der the operation of this law, more
would soon be made dry, and, if they
really wanted restrictive legislation,
why did they not announce their ap-
prevail of this law? But that is exactly
what they did not want, and the adop-
ton Of their platform is proof positive
that they were intent on undermining
the Moore law and preventing further
restrictions of the liquor traffic under
its provisions.
Effort to Repeal Moore Law.
Why would the Democratic platform
if enacted into law, weaken the exist
ing statute? After favoring a ward
and township local option law, that
platform states: But We declare that
such laws shall be supplementary to
the laws now in force relating to re-
monstrance against the granting of
such license This would seem at
first glance to be an endorsement of
existing law. but in reality it is moth
indirectly repeal it.
reason and experience alike show
that the local option election law FOR
wards and townships will nullify the
remonstrance law now in effect in In
diana. This is evident for various rea-
sons: First, in order to avoid pub
licity many persons when asked to
sign a remonstrance would say that
they preferred an election. This
would not subject them to any boy
colt on the part of the saloon forces
IN the community, nor would it hold
tnnm up TO whatever scorn or rfdicule
might result from a refusal to sign.
In other words, they prefer the secrecy
of the ballet to open action on this
question.
Secondly, where the moral sentiment
of the community is aroused and a vot-
ers wife and children are taking deep
interest in the question, it would be
much easier for him to record his vote
in favor Of the saloon than to put his
name on a remonstrance where all
men could be fully appraised of his po
sition.
The Brewery's Influence.
And the third and more significant
reason is. as has been demonstrated
over and over again in other states
that, where an election is held the in