The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1909-02-03
THE LOCAL OPTION BILL.

mis- paper the local option law, now
being considered in both branches OF
4he legislature. 1t is perhaps as
weil that the managers of the bill
Tost their fight and that the Judiciary
committee has an opportunity to
rTf@'le sOmer recommendations in re-
gard to it. 1t seems that the com
Tnittee might we'll reconstruct the
measure to the end that certain por-
GioDs of it relating to the creation
Of Anti-Saloon territory be made
rnorc clear TO this extent this pa
ger is in sympathy with Senator
cameron, when he declares for local
option of such a sort, that the peo-
ole may have saloons if they want
%heM. or may drive them out of
Business If they want to do so.
The trainers of the present law
doubtless wished this very thing, but
@he law as it stands is confusing. As
Il now is, voters OF county may pc
6ltion for an election to make the
county, Anti-Saloon territory. ana
.ose the entire county by the vote of
y che city. Supposiug the county 20
aave coted dry" by slight mar
gin, it would be possible to have the
question raised by a petition of city
eoters alone, for county election,
and this time the city might manage
40 vote the entire county wet.
Toters of residential city precinct
might petition for an election. mean
ing to vote their precinct dry" and
other voters might petition for an
election for the entire city. and
chen, voting in the negative, kill the
vote of the residential precinct.
which desired to vote "dry." 1t is
taot clear what would happen, if a
precinct, and a city, including this
precinct. and a county including
both, all filed petitions to create or
10 continue AntiSaloon territory,
FOR the same or conflicting motives.
- fact. as the law now stands,
gust what political subdivisions may
vote to become Anti-Saloon territory
as left largely to the Imagination.
IF, as seems 10 be the case. the coun-
". the city. the town. and the vot-
snG precinct are meant. and each
may so vote separately what would
happen if they all asked for the
same privilege at once?
The bill, so far as its provisions
are concerned for enforcing the law.
is good It's managers have made
every effort to make the law proof
against the skill of the law-breaker.
and the breaker of anti-saloon laws.
is little short Of miraculous in his
ingenuity If the people OF given
district desire to abolish the sale Of
Fiquor therein. by all means let it be
abolished, and let the Law be so
worded that it shall be impossible
so evada or violate it.
It IS feared by many who are in
SaNO' VI ibOlloIlttr 9uiOpHS, LHtiL Lh'
amendments which may be tackled
10 this law will be aimed to weaken
its provisions for self enforcement
rather than to make wiser provisions
FOR the creation of Anti-Saloon ter
r-itory As the law stands. it is a
terror tc those hoping to sell liquor
4 T. l..
of the usual avenues of escape for
the law breaker, and at the same
time. il is not unreasonable 1t SIM
ply Undertakes to so arrange mat
tiers thu. q community having voted
''dry." that community shall be
dry" aud without any exceptions.
At is. in fact, a most undesirable
piece Of legislation from the point
of view Of thei Individual who wishes
70 take what glory is coming to him
by voting dry" and enjoy all the
comforts OF living in a community
which IS very wet"
This paper takes exception to the
statement made by the Republic
that his bill sis not 4 good bill be-
cause 1t is designed to destroy the
mated liquor traffic This bill is
designed to destroy the liquor traffic
in cono'lnities where the voters do
not desire liquor traffic, and that is
all. is a good bill in fact, be-
cause =. looks as If it might really
destrO( the liquor traffic in such
communities very effectually. The
only point in which it is not a good
bill seems to be in that its dehDi-
lions OF the subdivisions which may
t'be made Anti-Saloon territory. are