The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1910-02-27

prosecuting the criminals no right to
be heard when the matter of regula-
ton is under considerations,
To favor county option it is not
necessary that one shall favor prohibi-
ton in his own or any other county.
Ones devotion to popular government
ought not to depend upon his approval
of any particular policy of government.
Democrats, for instance, will not lose
interest in free institutions merely be-
cause the Republicans obtain control
of the government. The people have
right to govern themselves, and
their right does not depend upon how
they exercise that right
No one doubts the town or city's
right to act upon the liquor question,
or the right of the precinct, or the
right of the state. Why question the
right of the county?
| 1t is sometimes objected that prohi-
bitiOn by the act of the county isus-
ponds the right of the precinct or city
to decide the question for itself. But
| this is not "a valid objection Every
restraining statute suspends the right
| of the individual to do the thing pro-
hbited. The larger group controls the
smaller. The city being larger than
viduah may or may not do, subject to
the right of the state to decide what
| the city may or may not regulate; and
the state in turn is subject to the pro-
visions of thej federal constitution
The people of the state, acting as a
whole, fix the limitations upon the
smaller groups, whether those groups
be towns, cities, precincts or counties,
and by the same logic the people of
the county ought to be permitted to fix
the limitations upon groups within the
county, except as the county's power
to limit is restrained by the states
superior authority.
1t is also objected that county option
| is only step toward state prohibition
! This would not be a valid objection,
even if the fact were admitted If the
people of a state have a right to pro-
hibit the sale of liquor over the entire
state they have a right to authorize
the counties to prohibit within their
borders. If the counties can justly
claim the right to regulate the liquor
traffic, in the absence of state prohibi-
ton, it is not just to deny them this
right merely out of fear that the exer-
else of the right may lead to the adop-
ton of state prohibition. A man must
be very anxious to continue the open
| saloon to deny to the people of a coun-
ty the right to act on the subject mere
ly because he is afraid that the exer-
else of that right may lead the people
of the state to ask for state prohibi-
ton. And, it may be added, it looks
like a confession of weakness on the
part of the liquor interests If, as thev
contend, prohibition is a failure. the
attempt to enforce prohibition by
counties ought to make that fact ap-
parent, and thus lessen the chance OF
state prohibition. And then, too, the
| liquor dealers ought to recognize that
! they can not logically oppose state pro-
hIbltiOn if they oppose county option
If those interested in the sale of
! liquor insist that liquor should be sold
| in county although a majority of the
voters of the county object to it, how
can they complain if their own logic is
| turned against them, and the people of
| the state insist that no liquor shall be
| sold in any county, even when a ma
| jority OF the people of the county ask
| for it?
| The present law requiring the sa-
| looms, wherever saloons are licensed,
to close at eight o'clock, has worked
we'll in practice and should be con-
| tinued. A later hour might be more
| convenient for some, but many are in
jured by late closing compared with
| the few who are inconSenienced by
early closing, so that the evils of late
closing outweigh the advantages.
| We have a law against treating in
Nebraska, but it is universally ignored.
| We should have a statute placing the
penalty on the saloon-keeper, and pro-