The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-07-01
ITS DAMAGING ADMISSIONS.

| the liquor question. The cause OF II
seems TO have been statement by
MIR. Edwin S. Sheets that the agitation
for prohibition would continue, and
that in the near future a meeting would
be held to effect an organization whose
aim would be Statewide prohibition.
The organ interprets this to mean that
"an agitation is to be begun in a short
time that would be continued and main
tanned for the greater part of two
years"
| But why should that be Objectionable
TO the Smoot organ? 1T is now good
| deal more than two years since the
Smoot organ began its agitation here
for prohibition. Morning after morn
ing for weeks and months it had a
big box editorial on the first page dc.
manding to know why prohibition
would not be good for Utah. 1t kept
up this agitation until it frightened the
| liquor interests into handsome con-
tributions for the campaign fund, and
then dropped it,
But if it was a good thing for the
Smoot organ to set on foot this pro-
hibition campaign, why is it bad
thing for Mr.. Sheets to continue that
agitation7 Why is he blameworthy for
continuing what the organ began?
Why should it claim a monopoly for
itself in this sort of work? 1t is often
the case that agitators find their cru
sade get too hot for them, and that it
is pursued to greater length, both as
to measures and to time, than they
would desire. But that is the penalty
which those must face who undertake
agitations of this sort. But, above
all, it is the extreme of Inconsistency
for one who begins an agitation in any
given cause to blame others for keep
ing on with that agitation. The Smoot
organ is primarily and distinctly the
agitator on the prohibition question i'll
Utah. 1t finds it impossible now to
control that agitation. But this is
result that is always to be reckoned
with, and the recklessness with which
the organ sprung this campaign Is of
piece with the folly which it now
exhibits in undertaking to snuff out
to carry it further. Inevitably others
will carry it further, but it cannot
shake off the prime responsibility for
the agitation.
But the organ claims that the people
of this State decided upon the question
Of Statewide prohibition last fall. 1t
is known, of course, to everyone that,
no matter how the people may decide
on any stated question at any election.
they are at liberty to reopen that ques.
ton, and to thresh it all over again,
and have the first decision reversed
if they so desire. The tariff question
has been before the people Of the Unit
ed States time out of mind; it has been
decided time after time. first one way
and then in another; but at no time has
anyone put forth the stupid idea that,
because decision has been had on
the question at one election, there must
not be another election On the same
issue.
The truth is that local option was in
perfect working condition in this State
before the organ began its prohibition
agitation. The people of this State,
when the organ first began this agi-
needless. and proposed disturbing Iegis-
lation was defeated. Then political
pressure was brought to bear, and the
late legislature passed a statute which
ostensibly was designed to give us pre-
cisely the condition that we already
had; that is, every community to de-
eide for itself whether it wanted liquor
sold in it or not. This was purely a
political agitation, needless, disturbing,
and unsettling on every question relat
ing to liquor that had been fully liti-
gated and fixed. The Tribune warned
all concerned of the trouble that was
certain to ensue. but in spite of thai
warning the Federal bunch politicians
pushed on and enacted their uncertain,
contradictory, and demoralizing legis.
lation. The courts are Just beginning
TO try to find out what 1T means, with
the result altogether uncertain; the
only sure thing about it all being that
the State is to be kept in turmoil
of litigation for as many years as the
undesirable legislation remains on the
statute book
But the contention of the Smoot
organ that it alone is entitled to agitate
the prohibition question, that it alone
should say when the agitation must
cease, is so silly proposition that it
is wonder to sec public writer take
that position. It is easy TO start a
fire, but the extinguishing Of that FIRE
is always matter of doubt and alarm
This should have been thought of by
the Smoot paper before it began its
agitation.
That organ continues It's diatribe by
asking "WilI anyone attempt to de-