The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-06-03

than one hundred years. therefore. in !
the domain of morals. the church has
been the final authority. II is the BIZ
BILE which says: Thou shalt not
steal" Thou shalt not kill" Thou
shalt not bear false witness" The
state has never said TO its citizens any
OF these things. 1t has confined itself
to the enactment of penal statutes in
which Il has affixed penalty for lar
ceny. and murder, and perjury. No
one disputes the right OF a people TO
institute the particular form of gov
eminent under which they may desire
10 live. No one disputes the right OF
people TO change the form of govern
ment under which they are living. But
in America we have a pretty we'll de-
fined idea that il there is 10 be
change in the form OF government,
that change shall be made in the way
provided in the written constitutions
by virtue of which our different gov
ernments now exercise their powers.
1t is idle TO dispute the fact that
there are people in the state Of Ind
lana who look upon the manufacture
and sale and use of intoxicating
liquors as A beverage, as crime
against the law OF God. There are
those who believe that. notwithstand-
ing the repeated decisions OF the
courts the traffic in intoxicating
liquors is a crime in and of itself, and
by that | mean a crime which arises
out of the moral nature of mankind.
and not out of any act of the legisla-
ture. Such persons as these are, AT
heart. Prohibitionists. They cannot
yield their assent TO the right of the
state TO grant a license for the sale of
intoxicants. They look upon it as in
herently a crime. When | speak TO
such persons as these, | assume that
they believe that all legislation which
tends 10 restrict a traffic i'll one part
of the state and permit il in another
is but toying with crime. Such of
these people, however, as | have per
sOnally known. L believe to be people
who are genuinely in sympathy with
our system of government. Desiring
Prohibition they do not desire II in
any other way than in a lawful way,
and they are therefore impressed with
and the law, that the only way in
which to accomplish this purpose is
to amend the several constitutions,
change the organic law of the people
so as to prohibit the manufacture, the
sale and the use of intoXicants as a
beverage. Church and state being dis
united, however, it has been from the
beginning. the policy of this state to
regulate the sale of such intoxicants.
That regulation has heretofore been
provided for by the legislature of the
state of Indiana in throwing around
the sale of intoxicating liquors, such
safeguards as the legislature in the
exercise of the police power of the
! state deemed necessary and appro-
pirate, and in placing certain re
| strictions with reference to the OBJ
tanning of licenses and in providing
that under certain circumstances, IL
censes should not be issued.
From the beginning of our govern
ment, the Democratic party has been
the champion of local self-government.
1t has believed that what the ward or
township could safely take care of,
ought not to be transferred TO the city
or the county; that what the county
could take care of, ought not TO be
transferred to the state; and that what
the state could take care of, ought
not to be transferred to the general
government. Strictly in accordance
with this time-honored idea. in its
platform of this year, the Democratic
state convention has unequivocably
declared that X will submit to the
voters of a ward in the city, and to the
voters of a township where there is
no city, the question as to whether OF
no, any license for the period of two
years shall issue for the sale Of intox
icating liquors in such ward or in such
township.
Neither the Democratic nor the Re
publican party is a Prohibition party
Neither party is attempting by an act
of the legislature of Indiana, to make
men wise, honest, truthful. indus
triOus or temperate. Each is simply
seeking to regulate the sale of intoxi
eating liquors. If, therefore, the Dem
ocratic doctrine of local selfgovern
ment in which I myself believe, meets
with the approval of the people OF this
state, then the unit provided in the
Democratic platform is the unit upoI
which the vote with reference to thu
sale of intoxicants should be taken.
When each of the parties recognize
the right of the state to license the
sale of intoxicants, then, manifestly, i
must be true that a vote upon tina
question should be reduced to the low
est unit of local self-government, 9th
erwise, the doctrine of local self-gov
eminent is a farce, because it mus
be apparent to any one who is at al
advised as to the condition of affair:
in Indiana, that a county vote would
enable some voters to prevent licenses
being issued in towns and cities which
such voters do not enter once in ter
years: and upon the other hand, i
would permit such voters to foist upor
the townships and wards the sale o.
such liquors when a vote in the indi
vidual township or individual ware
would have prevented such sale.
10 n