Bradford County telegraph. (Starke, Fla.) 1888-current, 1910-08-26
WITH FLORIDA EDITORS.
NOT A "LOCAL OPTION" ISSUE.

, local issue.
Under the plea of local option" sa
= loon men, not temperance advocates
are claiming that one county has II
night to force prohibition upon another
One man has no right to force anothe
to follow his peculiar views of prope
conduct. These propositions are tru
where individual counties or individus
E men are concerned.
t But a majority of the men Of Z com
mCnity have the right to prescribe an
. enforce rules of conduct to be fol!Owe,
by all the men of the community for IN
2 good of all While one county las n
! right IN COrrct another, a majority 0
| the counties of a community or stat,
have the right TO prescribe rules OF con
duet for the government of al where
the best interests of all as whole are in
volved. This applies to the prohibition
question as strongly as it does 70 all the
laws on the statute books or IN the con,
stitution.
The state is the unit Of which the
counties are fractional or component
parts, The meeting of the Legislature
to make laws for the government Of the
entire state is sufficient proof of the
correctness of this position. The parts
must be made to conform to the good of
the whole.
II is impossible for the majority of the
counties of Florida to be dry as long as
the centers of distribution in the state
are wet" This is demonstrated by
the persistence with which the wet"
counties flood the dry" counties with
liquors. A majority of the counties of
the state have voted dry" and tried TO
be dry" but the "wets" have afflicted
them with blind tigers" and will not
let them be dry"
As it is democratic doctrine that the
majority should govern, that the minor
ity should submit TO the will of the ma
jority in matters that involve the good
of the whole, therefore, it is right for
prohibition to prevail over the whole
state regardless of county lines, if a ma
jority of the people and counties of the
state so decide.
Ii each county were a distinct COM
monwealth or princlpality to itself,
from which the others could withdraw.
and separate their business and social
connections from it at will, then local
option" as whiskey men claim for it.
would have some apparent justification
of application, but there can be no such
marked distinctions and separations.
All are bound together in one body, the
state, one and insepsrable, morally, So
clally and commercially. Especially is
this true IN regard to the temperance
question. Therefore, 1t is not a local,
but state, issue and local option"
does not apply in the present eontro
versy
Let no man be deceived The whisEey
men mean by local option that the
whole state shall be "wet," and the
temperance people mean by Estate wide !
prohibition" that the whole state shall
be dry"
There is no third class. The man |
who is opposed to the amendment, be-
cause he is opposed to statewide prohi,
bition and in favor of local option"
is on the wet side in this campaign, it |
matters not what he may say or think.
We are willing TO grant him honesty of
to stand firm to what he be-
lieves to be right, If he CLAIMS to be
dry" but for local option" if he has
voted dry heretofore; but this fact re-
mains and cannot be wiped out-he is
lined up on the whiskey side in this
campaign, good man in bad company.
working with good purpose to q wrong
snd.
The object Of this article is to combat
the idea that one county, or the people
'f one county, is forcing another to be
Try. We have shown that it is not a
question as between counties, but shall
majority of the counties or majority
VI the people of the state govern in the
natter of prohibition, or shall a few
counties of the state keep all the coun-
les Of the state wet regardless of the
act that majority of them have voted ,
dry"
In short, there are no county lines in
he controversy now before the people.
In the interest Of the whole state and
very worthy person in it, vote for the
which calls for statewide {
Argus.