The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1910-07-24

every provision that would affectu-
ate the enforcement Of the law, and
then when finally defeated, cast
his vote in favor of the bill" You.
Mr., Murray. we'll know that your
statements embodied therein are
false. You know the facts to be
these. and X. \. Billups, the author
OF the bill, will remember this: that
this Senate Bin No 6l passed the
senate and came to the house. II
was an enforcement measure. When
il reached the house of represen-
ta.ives You had a siXty-one printed
page dispensary bill attached on to
this enforcement measure as a
rider You well knew that your dis
peusary bill could not pass the leg
islature unless it was attached to
this enforcement bill as rider
You offered the amendments and
this amendment precipitated the
fight. When you offered this amend
ment were you working in favor of
prohibition enforcement, or for the
sale OF liquors? In your argument
in support of your dispensary bill
yOV laid down two inconsistent prop
ositions, stenographic report of
which l have now in my possession.
Your first proposition was that 1t
WAS optional with the legislature as
to whether it passed a dispensary
bill or not. Your second proposition
was that ii the legislature passed
a dispensary bill that the same
should not be referred to the people
Of the state under the provisions Of
the initiative and referendum for
the reason, as you contended, that
the people of the state had voted in
favor of such dispensary as the
one you offered in voting for the
prohibition provision OF our consti-
tuition. You well know that / was
leading the fight to submit your dis
pensary bin, under the provisions OF
the referendum law of our con-
stitution. to vote of the people of
the state. You well know that in
reply to your argument in which you
laid down the two above PROPOSE.
tions that | pointed out the incon-
slstency OF the same ard contended
before the Legislature il your sec
ond proposition was true your first
proposition could not be true, and
a. the same time keep faith with the
people OF this state and, be con.
sistent with the campaign pledges
/ made them. Since you declared,
/ 'Nox populi, voX Del, the voice of
| the people is the voice of God, is
the true spirit of democracy" | con
tended that if the people of the
state had voted for the dispensary
that it was imperative on the legis-
lature to enact the same and not
optional | contended that in your
first proposition if it was optional
with the legislature, then there must
have been considerable doubt in
your mind as to whether the people
ever intended such a Gispensary sys-
TEN as advocated by you. A sys-
TEN under which ! showed by fig
ures, you never undertook to refute,
It would be necessary to sell $l,S0O.-
600 worth Of intoxicating liquors in
Oklahoma every year to make the
same self sustaining. A dispensary
bill which provided for the sale of
intoxicating liquors for medicinal
purposes which would have cost the
poor sick sufferer OF the state at
least $500 per quart, five times what
the same liquor usually costs on the
market. ] contended, as you well
know and as every member of the
house Of representatives well knows,
that If this dispensary system should
be adopted that the same should
pe referred by the legislature to a
vote of the people of the state, and
you well know that / made repeated
motions to seperate your dispensary
bill from the enforcement part of the
measure and pass the enforcement
measure, but every time you with
your steam roller brigade defeated
these motions and would never per-
nit the enforcement measure to be
, enacted until your dispensary act
was passed with it. | did lead the
fight for two months to submit this
dispensary bill TO the people AMI
; you know you do not state the truth
when you state that | changed my
vote on roll call on final passage.
VIII you answer the people of this
state why you did not want the peo-
pie to have a vote upon whether
a 4