Shoshone journal. [volume] (Shoshone, Idaho) 1884-1931, 1911-02-17
STATEWIDE PROHIBITION
AMENDMENT DEFEATED

A1iiu scenes which perhaps ttNtl
/ before in the history of idaho ac-
companied such a vote on a great
moral issue, the resolution to sub
nit the question Of statewide pro-
hifition to the vote Of the people
in the form of constitutional
amendment was defeated Wednes-
day afternoon in the house by a
vote of 80 to p. The number OF
votes necessary for adoption Is 20.
The floor of the house during
the day presented a spectacle
hugely enjoyed by the packed gal
iery. 'rhe representatives dropped
their mantIes Of sober conuIct.
Levity and mirth aDounded without
restraint. Preachers and laity join
ed in songs that ran from the pat
riotic to the sentimental. pathetic
and ridiculous. Stories were told.
A mock trial of one of the mem
Ders was held, in which leading
lawyers engaged in idle persiflage
on legal merits Of the defendant ;
case.
1ile greater part of the Demo-
Gratis were opposed to the measure,
only nine of the minority voting
for the resolution. while nine Of
the majority voted against 1t.
When the resolution was called
for the special order of business.
Davis of Oneida stated that the de-
bates should not be long on the
resolution as very many OF the
members had already made up theiI
minds. He stated that by adopting
the resolution at that time, it
would take he liquor question out
OF the realm of politics. that the
liquor question is the most mfor-
tunate thing which has risen In
the politics of the state, and that
the people should have the right
to say what they want done with
the question.
In reply to the statement that the
people should have the right to
pass on this question, Dunning of
Owyhee strongly asserted that ever.
question should be de
cided by the people. Until you
people who are dry agree he
said. ito have every important
question put to the direct vote of
the people. | don't propose to have
you adopt this amendment.
Galloway of Washington county
made strong plea for the adop-
that he regretted that any member
Of the minority should oppose it,
as it was along the line of direct
which was one of the
planks in the Democratic platform.
He stated that it was not question
Of wet" or dry, but right that
he people of the state have to de
eide wheather or not they want
statewide prohibition He claimed
hat il was higher question of
and that it was the
1uty Of the legislature To give the
.illzens the right to vote on it.
Kirby took the opposite view.
4e claimed that it was not the
same as the initiative and reteren=
ium in any particular. for ii took
wo-thirds majority to submit the
question and would take two-thirds
o repeal it. if it were found that
Is operations were ineffective,
While with the referendum il would
axe but majority vote. Hammer
hought al this lime that the de-
)ate had continued long enough. /
md moved the previous question.
stating that every man was ready
o vote of the resolution.
For the resolution-Alfred. Ar
hur. Baldridge. Bell. Berry. Black.
Rover. Bradley, Burrell. Grow
Davis. Eckles. Edgington. Eimers,
7armin. Galloway. Hellekson.
hendricks. Holmberg. Hyde. Jacobs |
Johnston. Jones. Morgan. Nelson.
Oakes. Pincock Sanborn,
smith. TAYLOR. Terrell Thompson |
Naruick. Speaker Shorey. Total. 30. I
Against tn resoution-BTadford.
;easar. Dunning. Featherstone.
Gibson. Hammer. Hill. hui
on. Jayne. Jenson. Johnson. Kirby.
.eaf MeCabe. Nelson. Parker. Sor-
nson. stephens. Strobe. VII
Mood. Total. p.
Ror Republicsns.26: Democrats,
Against. Republicans, 9 Dem
,crats. i3. Statesman