The Mitchell capital. (Mitchell, Dakota [S.D.]) 1879-1918, 1910-10-20

M voting mn, For. exampie, Il the
people % Mitchell vote to grant IL
sss,sss Re ,rsnatpder OF ,pey:sep
[aaHatI. hassae Xeiesta the mattar.s Il
= tlds question whether or not the
.YlAsi sopatI shoqld nave soHethipE
to say about the granting Of licenses
that sums up tho whole controversy
over county .opt3on.Y ffss
Tho liquor Interests charge that
county option Il . mere pretext. that
+ IA; device Tor the accomplishment
az prohibition without, aeknowledg-
nent Of 1t. They refer to it as county
a%rohibttion In the hope Of rallying
against 1t the anti-prohibitton senti-
ment. THIS charge is vehemently re-
sented by the friends OF county OPP
ton. Who charge their opponents with
lodging the issue, and challenge
them to 4 discussion OF the question
on its merits, They assert that it Is
taxation without representation to
make the farmers pay their snare of
the expense Of criminal cases result
in from the sale Of liquof, without
giving them anything to say about
the selling of liquor. It is urged that
towns either should pay all the ex-
pense resulting from the business Of
liquor-selling, or else should consult
the rest Of the county before grant
ing licenses.
The chief argument made by the
opponents Of county option is that the
Officers charged with the enforce
ment Of liquor laws are those of the
town or city and that they will be
governed by the sentiment in their
constituency, rather than in the
county. For example, they say that
even II Mlnnehaha county should. I'M
der county option, refuse to license
the sale OF liquor in tns county. the
sentiment in favor Of license in Sious
Falls is SO strong that the traffic
would go on much the same. except
that 1t would have no license. 1t is
not denied by the. county ~optionists
that this probably would be true of
Sioux Falls, that an illegal business
would succeed there a regulated
liquor business, it county option
should be adopted. But they say
that the fact that a community here
and there would be lawless is no ar
Igument against the establishment OF
law. They say that even if Sioux
Falls would becontemptuous OF coun-
ty option, that is no reason why the
rest of the state shuld give up it's
right to an equitable system of gov
erning the liquor business.
OF course there is a large vote on
both sides that will net consider the
merits of the question. There are
many who are opposed to the entire
liquor business who will vote for
county option simply because it is
certain to NEAR a substantial reduc-
tion In the number Of saloons in the
state. And on the other hand there
Is a large number who will vote
against the proposed law Just be-
cause it would curb the liquor traffic.
The balance Of votes is probably held
by those who will consider the ques-
ton carefully and vote according to
their convictions as to it's merits or
else by those who will take no in
terest in the matter and vote indiffer-
emily. 1t is doubtful, however.
whether the result at this election
will settle the controversy, whatever
it may be.
"A PARTY WITHOUT CHARACTER.
In his st. Louis speech, Col. Roose-
Welt said:
"a party that dominates Bryan as
q radical one year and Parker as an
ultra conservative the next time, and
then Bryan again, and then waits to
see II somebody won't carry an cleo
ton somewhere. SO they can nominate
him again-that party has forfeited
the right to the respect and the sup
port of the Independent persons who
seriously wish we'll to their native
land"
A comprehensive indictment is this.
and 1t states the case very we'll. Why
was Bryan nominated in 1900? Be-
cause President Mckinley was. COM
paratively speaking, a conservative.
and I was thought expedient to make
the democratic candidate different
fhom the republican nominee. Why
was Parker nominated in 1904? Sim
ply because Roosevelt, a radical. was
the leader Of the republicans and the
democrats thought to catch conserva-
tive votes by nominating Parker, q
man entirely without a message. In