Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1910-10-21


traffic has always been regarded as a
proper subject for police regulation.
The supreme court of the United
States in passing upon the right of the
people of the state Of Kansas to reg
ulate the liquor traffic used this Ian
guage: I'VE cannot shut out Of view
the fact, within the knowledge Of all,
that the public health, the public NOR
ais and the public safety, may be en-
dangered by the general use of in
toxicating drinks; nor the fact estab.
l1shed by statistics accessible to every
one that idleness, disorder, pau
perfsm and crime existing in the coun-
try are in some degree at least trace
able to this evil. If, therefore, a state
deems the absolute prohibition of the
manufacture and sale, within her linn
its of intoxicating liquors for other
than medicinal, scientific and manufac-
turing purposes, to be necessary to the
peace and security of society, the court
cannot override the will of the peo-
pie"
Now, If it be true that idleness, dis
order, pauperism and crime, as said
by the supreme court, are chargeable
to the traffic, and who is there to de-
ny it, then surely the people of the
county who bear the expense of main
tanning the paupers and criminals
should have the right to say whether
or not saloons shall be permitted to
increase the number.
am not a prohibitionist. | am not
out to advocate county option in any
community. But | do insist that the
people who have to bear the burden Of
the traffic have an inherent right to
say whether or not it shall exist. If
we had county option law at this
time, the people of this county would
have an opportunity to shy at the next
election whether they want saloons in
Freedom county or not. 1 can see no
injustice in such law. 1t would not
interfere with the so-called personal
rights of anybody.
The principal objection to county
option comes from the brewers and liQ-
uor dealers. Are they the guardians
of the people? Are they the conserva-
tors of our morals? Should they be
permitted to dictate our laws and our
policies? This is what they are doing
and that is why the people are up in
arms on the question. AS Mr.. Gray
has said, "They are not only brewing
beer, but they are brewing politics
and politicians" Of course, to you in
Albert Lea and in the smaller towns
generally this question of brewery
domination is not such a serious mat
ter. In most instances, I suppose,
your saloon keepers own their own
property and are settled, responsible
members of the community. Most of
them have some regard for public
opinion and for the welfare Of the COM
munity, but in the larger cities the
situation is entirely different. Ninety
per cent of the saloons are either
owned or absolutely controlled by the
brewing companies. The keepers are
hired men with no responsibility ex-
cept to @'shove out the DOPE" as one of
them expressed himself to me. The
fairly decent saloon is no longer to
be found as rule. The president of
our city council stated publicly the
other day that in more than 200 places
in the city of Minneapolis dissolute
women have rooms above the saloons.
A saloon keepers license has been
suspended twice because of miscon-
duct in this respect and our mayor and
the police department had to make an
open fight in the council, extending
through several meetings, to prevent
a renewal of the license for that
place.
It is an open secret in Minneapolis
that many of our aldermen are abso-
lutely dominated by the breweries. In
the years that have been connected
with the Voters league, I have had
opportunity to learn the true situa-
ton. Nearly every grating alderman
that we have had to contend with
owed his nomination and election to
the breweries. It is this condition of
affairs that has opened the eyes Of
the people. When the breweries' as
sumo to run, not only the legislature,
but our cities, it is time for the peo-
Pile to cry halt. A county option law