The Seattle Republican. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1???-1915, 1909-02-19
RUTH ON LOCAL OPTION.
Ruth's Speech in the Senate on the
local option will was as follows:


the Anti-Saloon League bill must elect
to defend themselves on the ground
that they are advocating state wide
prohibition. They cannot avoid this is
sue if they would and 1 do not think
they will try. The gentlemen who are
advocating the passage of this bill are
the representatives on this floor of the
Anti-Saloon League. That the Anti
Saloon League is prohibition organiza-
ton none of them will attempt to deny.
Naturally one would not look for a
reasonable local option bill to emanate
from that source. AS the people advo-
eating this measure are admittedly pro-
hibitionists themselves, they must
either stand by this bill as prohibition
measure or confess that they are sail
ing under false colors. The bill itself
clearly shows that it is a prohibition
bill, for by no stretch of imagination
can the county unit be called reasonable
local option. The county has been made
the unit for the sole purpose of allow
ing the country precincts to vote the
cities dry. This would be the most
offensive kind of prohibition.
The provision of this bill which makes
every precinct dry, if the county votes
dry, regardless of the fact that the pre-
cinct may have voted wet, and every
precinct dry that votes dry, regardless
of the fact that the county voted wet,
is wonderful conception of reasonable
local option. This, then, being a pro-
hibition measure in fact, if not in name,
gives the right at this time to examine
the effects of prohibition as a remedy
for intemperance.
That there is a drink evil I admit;
that it is the duty of every member of
the senate to vote for any measure cal
culated to remedy that evil, no one will
dispute; that all the brains, all the hon
esty, and all the desire to legislate for
the best interests of the State of Wash
ington is confined to the gentlemen sup
porting the Anti-Saloon League bill, I
deny Impugning the motives of an
other is cheap and easy. Hysteria is
not argument. am opposed to anything
that savors of prohibition for the reason
that I know, both from observation and
study, that instead of helping the cause
of temperance, it has exactly the OPP
posite effect, besides bringing in its
train host of other evils, more to be
perance, lying, hypocrisy, deceit and dis
regard of all laws.
1 am opposed to prohibition because
it abolishes the decent saloon and the
decent saloon-keeper and substitutes the
dive and the dive-keeper, always, as l
shall prove to you, in greater numbers.
This, too, is the reason why, in license
state like Washington, the saloonmen are
opposed to prohibition; a large percent
age of our saloonmen are decent, law
abiding citizens; these men under pro-
hibition will go out of business and
their places will be taken by men who
are willing to become criminals The
dive-keeper of today will continue to
run dive and for every decent saloon
that prohibition closes, history will re-
peat itself, and you will find two dives
in it's place. Another reason why I am
opposed to prohibition is the quality
of liquors sold in prohibition states
That men will drink if they want, is
truism, and it is equally true that if
they cannot get pure liquors they will
drink any kind that comes to hand. The
sale of Jamaica Ginger, fiavoring, eX-
tracts, beef wine and iron and all of
the patent medicines having alcohol as
base, is increased four-fold under pro-
hibition. Getting drunk on these things
has become so common in Maine that
| the expression "Jaky Jag" has come
into general use, to describe in short
| form a species of drunkenness so bestial
that in comparison a Siwash with a
Whiskey skate on looks like a Sunday
school teacher. With the man, who,
when this question is under discussion,
puts every part of his brain in cold stor-
age, except his bump of emotion, it is
useless to argue. When any man ap-
proaches this question on the basis that
to sell liquors is sin, or that it is
immoral, he is either an irrational ven
dor of words who has never devoted a
single moment to the study of the ques-
ton or else he has gained his entire
stock of information from some hair
Drained individual, who makes his living
playing upon the emotions of the women
and children, and that part of the public
who always do their thinking by proxy.
Bishop Hall, of Vermont, speaking on
this subject, said:
prohibition, by many of it's earnest
advocates, is connected with the notion
that all use (save for medicinal pur-
poses) of drink, that in excess may be
intoxicating, is wrong. The use of such
drink is in itself no more wrong than
the use of tobacco. In either case 1t
is the misuse which we have to guard
against. Doubtless, with many PERSONS
total abstinence (from wine or from
tobacco) may be safest and best To
attempt to enforce this on all persons
is to manufacture an artificial sin with
the risk of leading many persons to
think lightly of what is absolutely
wrong"
If on this question of drink we take
the bible as our guide, we can proceed
on these two propositions:
To GET drunk is a sin