The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1910-02-11
The Democratic Advocate and Local
Option.

Option.
The Democratic Advocate, the Dem
ocratic organ of Carroll county, in its
issue of February 4th, in long edi-
torial opposing the Anti-Saloon League
local option bin and attacking the
League Superintendent expresses its
pent up bitterness over the defeat
which the League helped administer
to it by electing to the House of Dele
gates the two Republicans who favor
ed the local option bill.
The Advocate objects to the Leagues
dissertation of the Sabbath" and at
tempts to show that the League
plans are at variance with the teach
ings of Christ. AS we remember 1t
there was a gang of little me too
politicians who complained some two
thousand years ago because the Mas
ter of the Sabbath day restored the
sight of the blind and made the lame
to walk. 1t is small wonder that their
successors object to having us open
the eyes of the voters and teach them
how to proceed effectively. We dis
miss this with the suggestion that a
meeting where the Advocates editor
would expound the scriptures and the
Rev. Alfred P. 5Kurtz, the rector" OF
tn saloonkeepers' church in Baltimore
should offer prayer would be worth 60
ing some distance and paying gener-
Gus admission fee to attend.
Either the Advocate is ignorant OF
| the provisions of the local option bill
or it assumes that the people are. Any
person who can read and understand
the English language, and who desires
to know the truth knows that the
League bill makes. no attempt to stoE
drinking 1t provides for stopping the
sale of intoxicating liquor where the
people do not want it. And 1t is ex-
plicit, for experience with certain
class OF lawyers and their clients has
shown this to be necessary. The Ad-
vocate speaks of expense of elections
but the truth is that not cent Of eX.
pense. will be entailed upon the public
because the League bill provides fol
submitting the question upon the reg
ular ballot at regular elections.
The Advocate complains that the
League bill would be difficult to en-
force. The rich irony of this can be
appreciated only by the initiated. The
gentleman who is understood to be
running the Advocate and who is cur
rently believed to nave written this
article told the League Superintendent
after the close of the last legislature
and before the League had shown il
up, that he drafted the Carroll county
law passed by the last legislature
which not only eliminated all enforce
ment features, but did not even have
a penalty clause. We are informed
that he also drafted the high license
law which abolished what little dry
territory Carroll county did have, thus
putting it into the class with Charles
and St. Mary's as the three totally
wet" counties in the State.
Answering the Advocates claim
that it il difficult to enforce the law
in unit smaller than a county, which
| is the only thing resembling argument
| In the whole article, we simply. say
that experience shows that it is much
easier to enforce prohibition law in
small district where, all the people
want it than to enforce it through the
county il there are some districts
where it is not wanted at all. The
Advocates argument is at variance
with human nature and common ex-
perience.
| The Advocate says in Its editorial
that 1t ID not in sympathy with the
saloonkeeper and yet we are Informed
4 that this same gentleman was over
heard to say in substance to Car
! roll county liquor dealer who COM
planned about the high license law
that the liquor dealers ought to thank
him because the high license law was
passed solely for the purpose of pro-
! tectfng them by heading off local OPP
ton.
Another editorial on the same page
says !:
yet a fearless and candid presenta-
| ton or matters OH local interest IL a.
necessary now as 1t ever was and the
Advocate will still continue to give it.