United labor bulletin., 1909-10-29


ment, with the same end in view, in
duced Congress to abolish the army can
teen. Now the army post affords a most
admirable example of a community COM
plete and sufficient in itself The army
post, whether in the neighborhood of
large city or on the vast prairie lives
its own life, has it's own interests, ad-
ministers its own discipline. 1t is really
an imperium in imperio. Here then were
the conditions ideal for the application
of local option or home rule. | challenge
you who are now vociferating for local
option, for the control of the liquor traf-
fc by the small political unit, you who
wish to give the ward the right to de-
eide whether it will permit the liquor
business or not, challenge you to ex-
plain why you did not demand local op-
tion for the army post? Why did you
not leave it to the soldiers of the post to
decide by vote whether they wished beer
| in the canteen or not? Or why did you
not at the very least leave it to the de-
cision of the officers of the post? And if
you disclaim responsibility for what was
done before as a local option movement
you acquired power, l challenge you to
say here and now whether you are or are
not in favor of local option for the army
post at this hour? Are you willing to
| initiate or at least to second and push
movement in Congress to abolish Prohi-
bition by national enactment at army
posts and to substitute therefor local op-
ton? If you are not willing to say this
and to do this, how have you the nerve
to stand here and declare your belief in
the principle of local option? Is it not
true that local option is a mere trick to
get only what you cannot get in the way
of anti-liquor legislation from the state
and the nation? Is it not true that you
are quite ready to advocate national con-
troll, state control or ward control, not
only consecutvely, but simultaneously,
as suits your purpose, and that your only
real demand in the way of political prin-
ciple is that the law shall squelch the
liquor man? Whether it is national
club, a state club or a ward club, that
you WELD, is matter of entire indiffer-
ence to you: you have all three in your
arsenal, ready for use. Your sole prln-
ciple is not political or civic at all: it is
lust of hate against the man who
holic beverages. 1t is a hate and not a
principle, that animates you.
The Milk In the cocoanut
To call this bill local option measure
either in it's spirit or its form, is simply
to juggle with an honorable name. True,
local option leaves to the local political
unit, which may seem to have the best
claim to jurisdiction over the matter in
issue, the entire control of that matter.
1t trusts in the wisdom of the local com
munity, and it loyalty accepts the YER
dict of the local community. 1t believes
that even if the local community should
err in it's action, still it can be depended
on to rectify it's error; and indeed it goes
so far as to hold that it is better that the
local community should make occasional
errors tnan that it should be subjected
to the dictation, even to the wise dicta-
ton, of a superior Yet look at the piece
of cunning that is perpetrated in this
bill nullifying real local option in the
name of local option. For this bill ac-
tualIy erects two local political units COW
ering in part the same territory, and
therefore bound at times to come into
conflict. | refer to the municipality and
the ward. The ward is a portion of the
municipality. Now, on the principle OF
local option, both the city and the ward
cannot be the correct political union.
Either the city or the ward ought to
have jurisdiction. Which of the two is
the natural and proper locus, or political
unit to control the liquor traffic within
it's borders? Is it the city? Is it the
ward? Both replies the bill. But this
is an extraordinary position to take. How
can both, and why should both, control? ?
Surely, one has better claims than the
other.
Now l believe that this conflict be-
tween the authority of the city and the
ward is not an accident. / believe it was
carefully contrived. And what its effect
will be is clear from an examination OF
the further provisions. For look. In the
event of a difference of Judgment be-
tween the city and the ward, difference
that is sure to arise in every large city
| since all wards will not be of the same
t judgment, l say in the event of a differ
| ence of judgment on this issue between
the city and the ward, this bill expressly
provides that the unit, whether city OF
ward, which stands for Prohibition shall
: have the upper hand and overmaster the
other. Thus, if the city as whole votes
Prohibition, then the antiProhibition
ward must yield to the city and become
Prohibition territory, too. But if the city
as whole votes license, the Prohibition
ward is still at liberty to defy the city
and maintain Prohibition. In case of a