The Colville examiner. [volume] (Colville, Wash.) 1907-1948, 1908-06-13
The Temperance Agitation

Mr.. Editor-Your editorial of May 80, dealing
with the political status of the liquor question, was
provocative of thought. Inasmuch as have found
it necessary to look somewhat deeply into this mat
ter in the past may be able to add to what has al
ready been said and thus help your readers to dis
cover the real situation.
First, word as to local option. There is wide
difference between local option and local prohib-
tion. We might have a local option law in this
state and have as many saloons as now. Further
more under this local option law we might have
local option campaign in every county and have as
many saloons as we have now. Local option means
prohibition when the ma jOrty decides, but it
means permission as we'll when the majority so de-
cides Therefore, l contend that local option is
wrong for it recognizes the right of the community
to keep saloons il ma jority Of the voters so de-
termine. Our contention is that no community has
right to license saloons. This contention is based
upon decision of the United States supreme court
that no community has right to barter away
public morals" This same authority has declared
the saloon public nuisance" Judge Artman's
decision that all licensing of saloons is unconstitu-
tional seems sound, but that decision would make
local option as unconstitutional as license under
state law
AS prohbitory measure the weakness of local
option is seen in the fact that the community that
needs prohibition most can not get it at ALL In our
county, Colvie, Northport, Newport and Spring
dale are the places that need prohibition more than
do the rural sections for the that the saloons
are in the towns. Under county option we might
be able to vote them out, but under precinct op-
ton-which is local option gone to seed we could
not do so.
So far as the political situation is concerned there
are two points of difference between the parties.
Itshoud be understood that neither party is pledged
to prohibition. For instance, the republican party
might give the state local option law and then
turn about and defeat local prohibition in every
precinct where it had majority, or, the democratic
party might submit constitutional prohibition
amendment to the people, thus fulfilling it's pledge,
and then turn about and all it's force in order to
defeat the measure. Neither has either party
pledged itself to the enforcement of the law after
it is passed
One point Of difference is in the size of the unit.
The republicans have not fixed the unit. No one
knows whether they mean precinct option, town.
ship option, county option, or what. In an inter-
view Governor Mead refused to state what size of
unit he should recommend to the legislature if
elected. The democrats have fixed the boundaries
of their unit. Statewide prohibition is what they
offer to submit.
The second point of difference is in the nature of
the proposed Legislation. The republicans propose
legislative enactment Any succeeding legislature
can appeal the laws passed All will depend upon
the temper of the legislature. The democrats pro-
pose constitutional enactment. This must be done
by the people, and what the people enact the peo-
pie only can repeal.
What the cause of prohibition needs in Washing
fo{b
ton and party in power that will see that the law
is enforced. HENRY A. SHELDON
The Mining Pilot is four-page monthly publica-
ton issued at Orient in the interests Of the Orient
and Pierre Lake mining districts. 1t is edited by
Capt L. Beecher and is filled with interesting
matter pretaining to the mining industry of this
section. Such publication will result in benefit