The Glenwood post., 1909-03-06

fects the homes, ithe fathers, the moth
ers, the children and future genera
tions more than any other that is before
us.
I'm settling it we ough. not to use
arguments that are political. We ought
not take positions that are abusive,
but we ought TO consider it from 4
business as well as from n moral side,
and we ought to settle it on a just, an
equitable and not prejudicial basis.
"Let us nos, therefore, think of abus-
ing the brewer or the saloon keeper;
let US meet them on broad basis with
fair argument.
''In arg ling this question let me ap-
peal to the slogan of the present dom
ina ing party in the state of Colorado;
! tho slogan mat was sent forth by its
national leader, man of integrity, and
| of power, shall the people rule?'
care the people ruling on the liquor
| question today In answer that the!
are beginning TO rule under the present
local option law passed two years ago.
"Th'y are l'"gnning to rule with such
IN iron hand that the liquor interests
are no: only becoming scared at the
power of the people under the law, but
are putting up n determined fight to
overthrow the will of the people ex-
pressed through that law, by asking
the supreme court to declare the law un,
constitutional.
| "lf the contention of the liquor in
terests as laid down in the Swartz case
succeeds and the supreme court declares
the present local option law unconstitu-
tonal then indeed there is no need
for the amendment to that law as now
before the Legislature.
:" But will the supreme court take
! their view of the ease? Will that court
declare this bulwark of the people to
be contrary to the provisions of our
constitution?
In my opinion the introduction of
the Cary bill now before the senate and
ol '-lit NftIuitN itiii npN u'lbIt lit
house, both identical, is an admission
on the part of the liquor interests that
they are expecting an adverse decision.
at would seem to me that the push
ing of these bills looking to an amend
ment of the present law, argues that
they expect to have an adverse deei-
sion.
"There are several jokers in the
Wardlaw bill. One Is that the vote ad-
verse to the saloon bill shall control
the result for period of two years
it is exactly opposite; the vote adverse
to the saloon controls it until the peo-
pie upon new petition consider the
matter and vote in favor of the saloon.
"The second joker is that a vote
in the smallest unit shall control ire
spective of the votes in larger units.
This is absolutely the opposite of the
present law.
"Our present statute provides that
if two or more precincts vote to go dry
the whole territory embraced in the pc
tition votes TO retain the saloon in the
territory it shall so remain irrespective
of the vote of the larger unit named in
the petition.
''The third joker in this bill is be
cause it is in the power of the county
commissioners to create voting pre-
cinct. And our present law states that
they shall not create a voting precinct
to exceed 500 votes in it. This is the
maximum there is no minimum.
=" Through this provision, at any time
| any city or town in the state could ere
ate precinct wherein there would be
one hundred, fifty, twenty-five or even
only ten votes, if the commissioners so
desired.
"And, however small the precinct
he, that precinct with perhaps every
vote controlled by the power of the
saloon, if it vote to become wet, it mat
ters not if the whole city, ten to one,
desires it to go dry, the little unit
l
power will overthrow the win of the
entire people.
"The fourth joker is that the am
endment contains an emergency clause
Surely there is an emergency in connec
tiop with this amendment. If the sa-
looms are not to lose their grip on the
people it is important to them that this
amendment should pass and go into eff
feet Immediately.
"My appeal to you is, that the peo-
Pile of the city and county of Denver,
being approximately one-third of the in
! habitants of Colorado and controlling
about one third of both the house and
senate; get busy, flood your representa-
tiyaS, in fha fhnuca an1 ,-nur rnproSaptn