Shoshone journal. [volume] (Shoshone, Idaho) 1884-1931, 1910-10-28
MR. HAWLEY AND THE LIQUOR
QUESTION.

governor is still endeavOring to
make people believe that there is
some element of hypocrisy OF sham
in the Republican attitude on the
liquor question. He is still insist
ing that the local option law shall
not be strengthened; he is still de-
handing that it shall not be chang
ed.
The liquor men seem to be Thor
oughly aroused over that word
strengthen" They know well what
it means, and they have appealed
10 Hawley, as their spokesman in
this contest, to use all his skill as
an attorney to prejudice the public
mind with respect to that plank in
he Republican platform.
But it is another feature of this
matte to which we wish to call at
tention at this time. In his adj
We think It was at Preston
in Oneida county, Mr.. Hwley, in
speaking of the Republican plat
forms declaration on the liuqor
question. said:
IF the Republicans really want
statewide prohibition, why did
they insert that clause in their plat
form that they would if returned
10 power, submit the question of
prohibition to the people by consti-
tutional amendment?
IF they want prohibition, all
they have to do is to pass pro-
hibition law by a majority of both
houses. and the moment the givern-
or signs it, every saloon and brew
cry and distillery in this state
would be put out of business. This
proposition of submitting a cOnsti-
iutional amendment is a fraud on
the voters. and by it the Republic
cans are trying to win office under
false pretenses."
That extract furnishes another
illustration Of what seems to be
responsibility on the part of Mr..
Hawley. Moreover, it shows the
greatest Inconsistency on his part.
The Democrats are promising the
people the initiative and referen-
dum. Moreover, in dry counties
they are promising the people they
will have an opportunity under the
initiative and referendum to stamp
out the liquor traffic.
If Mr.. Hawley is so attached to
the initiative and referendum, why
Gees he attack this proposal on the
Part cf the Republicans to submit
This great question to vote of the
peoplr? He processes to think there
is no difference between a pr0hibi-
ton amendment and a prohibition
statute. Of course. he knows there
is a difference, but he is very care
full net to let his audiences think
that he understands the subject.
Mr.. Hawley knows that prOhi-
bition statute could be repealed by
a majority vote in the legislature.
with the concurrence of the gov
crnor. He knows, or he ought to
know. that the temperance people
of the state desire to have this
question settled in way in which
II can not be easily disturbed.
For this reason the great mass of
me DeODle who are attached to the
temperance cause desire to have a
prohibition amendment submitted,
if they can have it submitted, and
f they can secure its adoption by
he people. it will be fixed so firm
Is that the liquor power can not
thereafter find a way to tear il
DOWN.
That is the reason why The tenn
perance people desire prohibition
amendment. They want this ques-
ton settled: they want it settled
right. and they are willing that the
people themselves, by popular vote,
shall determine how it shall be set
tied in this state.
That is very different from the
enactment of a prohibition statute;
that is going to the people on the |
question. That is what Mr.. Hawley |
and his party propose to do on other
questions, while many of them are
promising the people of dry coun-
ties that they will proceed in that
manner under the initiative and re-
ferendum to abolish the liquor
traffic.
As a matter of fact, Mr.. Hawley
ant the Democratic party want the
people to have initiative and refer
rndum on everything but the liquor
traffic. The Republicans propose
to give the people the initiative and
r. fcrendllm on fhp liUuOr traffic in