St. Tammany farmer., 1910-04-09
PROHIBITION vs. LOCAL OPTION

'In published statements, the Anti-Saloon League
has, through mistaken idea, charged the Business
Mems League with being opposed to the just and
proper regulation OF the retail liquor traffic and with
| favoring the restoration # the races.
The League has considered the question Of
restoring the races under any conditions. AS for the
liquor question, far from advocating non-restrctve
| measures, the League has always been an active
worker for the rigid enforcement of the
law in spirit as we'll as in letter.
The membership of the League to man IS opposed
to statewide prohibition and to any any attempt to
make statewide prohibition an issue OF moment IN
louisiana
The principal of such legislation is or should be
adhorrrnt to every commonwealth:
The right of each community within the State to
adopt by ma jorty vote and enforce by the strong
arm of law restrictive measures, prohbitve taxation,
or absolute prohibition is fundamental and not to be
denied by any other community. In such matters
local conditions should govern and predomnate; local
Observation-Disclosures it emanate from the church, the
barnyard, the cornfied the public square-should
be permitted to move the community to action But
no community, in formulating its own wishes and IN
carrying them into effect should overstep its own
boundaries and enforce its views upon some other
community alongside Of hundreds Of miles away,
where sentiment, desire, prospective interest, view
of life, needs training, and mode OF life run in other
channels.
Regulation of liquor traffic is, and should be, a
purely civic NATTER and is question for the people
of each community to decide for themselves. 1t is
not question for the church to decide, nor is it
question to be left to the judgment of man who
never touched drop in his life any than it is
question that should be left to man who cannot
control his appetite and his passions.
The republic was founded by men who had had
enough of other mans rule, who wanted
none of the thumb and the rack who de-
manded self government and the right to pursue the
even tenor of their way free from onerous restraint
The founders of the republic these rights and
privileges by sangunary strife.
Freedom from undue restraint does not mean
limtless license any than liberty of conscience
carries with it the right to control neighbors pri-
vate life In order that peace and prosperity might
be the portion of all men, the sovereign power was
regulations as would guide the police power
in maintaining such order as peaceful citizens
desired, to the end that they might live happily and
prosper. The basis of all this freedom from all
unnecessary restraint Yet here in the Goth century,
an age of enlightenment, are told by one set Of
work of the forefathers and permit one part of a
great commonwealth to regulate the habits the life
and the customs Of another part without regard to
the wishes, desires, needs requirements of the
people who affected, but who oppose the meas
ures prescribed"
local opton-the right of each community to deter
mine for itself what position it will take on the liquor
question and upon all other questions that come
within its province to regulate. If local option be
resorted to, no harm will be done to any community
If all communities desire prohibition, then statewide
prohibition will exist. If some want it and others
do not, then each may settle the matter in the man
ner most satifactory."
"If the Anti-Saloon League honestly desires to see
the will of the pehple rule, they will succeed best by
leaving the question to each community. Prohibition
cannot be enforced in a community in which a
majority of the people do not want prohibition, and
repeated failure to enforce it in such communities
should have taught the prohibitonist valuable
lesson by this time