The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-01-18
THE PARTY CAUCUS ON LIQUOR


The Republican party conference held
on Monday evening TO pass upon the
sort of liquor legislation that will be
enacted during the present session OF
the Legislature, did not succeed in
adopting any dominating programme
The tone Of the caucus, which appeared
to be controlled chiefly by Salt Lake
politicians, appeared in a tentative way
to favor the Evans liquor bill, intro
duced by Representative Hayes of Utah
county. But no decided expression was
made. 1t seems anomalous, all the same,
that caucus of Salt Lake politicians
should presume to hitch up the LegisIa-
ture and drive it on this question.
Senator Carl Badger brought forward
much yigor by Governor Spry and 9th
crs at the session of two years ago,
TO make the liquor business a State
party machine. Mr., Badger has added
some further provisions such as regu-
lating the cummodiousness Of the drink
ing place and forbiddlng more than one
entrance in it. But drinking place a
hundred feet long. with width CORE
spending, and only one entrance, would
be contrary to the fire regulations OF
any well administered city. At any
time when there might be a crowd in
a room of that kind, and an alarm of
fire. a crushing catastrophe would be
certain, The forbidding. as proposed
by Mr. Badger of dumb walters, or
any apcrtures for the passing of
drinks, is "A unique proposition. In
hotel, let us say the Utah hotel, if "A
guest should order a drink of whisky,
il would have to be taken out on the
sidewalk and, perhaps, be carried up
stairs by hand, the elevator being for
bidden as being dumb waiter 1t
would look AS If the only germanc
amendment TO proposition like this
would be that the guests of the hotel
should take their drinks on the side.
walk.
NJ NJ Steele. former clerk Of the
House. and at present member of the
Republican State Committee, protested
vehcmcntly against the assumption that
he and his ncighbors, living in rural
county, must have the liquor question
settled for them by the Legislature, in
place Of having q voice IN 1t them
selves. He claimed that the people OF
his county have Just as much right to
decide this question for themselves as
the people of any city have. And he
protested that no such intent as has
been imputed, was had by the commit
tee that drew the Republican platform
He explained that he helped to draw
that platform himself, and knows bet
ter than those who had nothing TO do
with it, what the intent and meaning
of the platform is. And he assured the
caucus that the assumption is entirely
wrong, which compels prohibition in
rural counties; that the outer counties
without incorporated cities in them
must have prohibition by law whether
they want it or not Nothing of the
klnu Is hcpuDlCdu uuSJliuc, nll> ioIteiN
claimed; and no one had the temcrity
to come back at him on his position.
This explanation by Mr.. Steele puts
an entirely different phase upon the
Republican pledge with respect to the
liquor business from what that pledge
has heretofore been assumed TO mean.
1t is hard to avoid the force of Mr..
Steelc's contention on the rights Of
the people to determine locally matters
of this kind for thmselves, Just as it is
hard to reconcile the idea that law
half prohi bition and half local option
would be held valid by the courts. 1t
is quite possible. indeed, that the pres
ent Legislature will let the liquor ques-
tion alone, just as the Legislature of
two years ago did. in spite Of all the
furore about it, And this would be all
the more consistent, inasmuch as the
ruling of the Supreme Court has in the
meantime settled the law in this State,
as to the liquor business. on a basis
that is fairly satisfactory, and that
does not materially differ in the pro-
visions of the Republican State plat
form rspecjally as these arc eynlaiued