The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1909-02-04
VARIOUS VIEWS
ON PROHIBITION
Judge Colborn Resents What
He Terms Attempt to
Laugh Him Down.
CITY BREWERY VALUATIONS
REP. ARcHBoLO ACCEPTS APoS-
TIE GRANTS APOLOGY.

The discussion of prohibition before
the house judiciary committee in the
house last night was not an entirely
harmonious affair. Sometimes it was
inclined to acrimonious. especially when
Judge CoIborn declared he would not
be laughed down. The judge was al
most alone as champion OF what was
called the opposition" and several
times while he was talking there was
some laughter. At last the judge turned
to Apostle Heber ]. Grant and said;
You cannot laugh me down. They
have for seventy-five years been trying
tn laugh down your religion, but 1t still
stands"
Then he turned to the members of the
legislative committee and said they
were not elected by popular clamor,
and must be guided by their own calm
judgment.
Some thirty persons participated in
the discussion Judge Colborn told OF
there being six government licenses IN
Springville, and George NJ. Cannon, in
his speech, said he had been enlightened
by the source from which the judge had
obtained his statistics, and thought
they were not worth a hill Of beans"
either with reference to SpringYille or
Kansas. Judge Colborn asked Mr. Can
non If he questioned the accuracy of
the statistics, and the latter said he did
not
Arguments were made that there was
an overwhelming demand for prohibit
ton in the state-90 per cent it was
claimed-and that the state was ripe
for the measure. On the other hand, Il
was urged that prohibition does not
prohibit: that regulation was the course
to pursue.
Opinions Expressed,
Leroy Armstrong. editor of the In
/ ter-Mountain Republican, was present
and was called upon for an address. He
/ did not favor prohibition, but favored
/ a law which will reduce the evils and
abolish the bad features and the en-
| forcement of the law.
David Evans asked Mr.. Armstrong if
4 the Republican did not advocate prohi-
bition. and the editor said it did not.
Then" Mr.. Evans asked, what do
you call it?"
Mr.. Armstrong replied they had asked
the question in the paper, Shall Utah
Have Prohibition" Many of the read
ers had complained because the same
thing was being repeated day after day.
The paper did advocate temperance re-
form, and was still advocating it.
George NJ. Cannon asked the edit
of the Republican if the paper would
! give space to communications favoring
prohibition, and Mr.. Armstrong said
that it would give all space within rea-
/ son. Mr.. Cannon, who was charged
| by Mr.. Armstrong as voting against
prohibition in the constitutional con-
/ vention. repudiated that assertion. He
said he voted with others to defer the
question to the first legislature. Mr.
Cannon gave some statistics as &c
brewery valuations in the city, and said
that a tax of Is mills for one year
| would buy out the concerns, and he
was willing to bear his share. The
| breweries are valued at about $4,000,
and the annual tax to the government
is about $150,0O0
The question then arose to close the
debate. Judge COlbOrn wanted another
meeting held, and promised to bring
one of the prominent divines of the city
to discuss the opposite phase of the
question. This, however, was eventu-
/ ally refused.
ire Is Aroused
! Apostle Grant again got into a con-
fiict. In some remarks as to the evil
| dent anxiety of the legislators to close
the question, ne said sarcastically: IF
it was a show, we would all stay until
/ midnight"
This aroused the ire of Representa-
tive William Archbold of Summit coun-
ty, and he walked up to Apostle Grant
and, pointing his finger at him, said
Il won't take that from you, Apostle
/ Grant. I don't go to shows or saloons.
and will not be insulted in that way
Apostle Grant arose and begged the
gentleman's pardon, and the apology
| was accepted.
The final decision of the meeting was
that there should be no further public
discussion of the question, but anyone
could present their views to the com
nlittee in writing.