The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-06-27
THE FRAUD OF IT ALL,

,
J iblc, and fraudulent campaign ever con
Quoted i'll any part Of the United State
i for any purpose whatever The election
ostensibly was to decide whether thi
city shall be "wet' or "dry" AS
matter of fact, it is not possible IL
impose any dry conditions upon Sal
Lake City; for, under the provisions ot
Section of the liquor law by tn,
terms of which the election of today i:
held, the manufacturers of Intoxicating
liquors, including breweries, distilleries
and wineries, are given the absolute
right to sell their products in lots of five
gallons or more no matter whether the
vote Is "wet' or "dry.D 1t is an
anomalous condition now when sup
posed prohibition campaign is on 10
have it turn out that there is no pos.
slbjlity to get prohibition no matter how
the people may vote.
The whole proposition was conceived
IN political chlcanery and was developed
through the Federal bunch intrigues
There has been nothing at the bottom
OF the movement at any time. except
false pretense. The reason given for
the passage of the law was that under
1t every community could decide for
itself whether it wants liquor sold in it
or not. But that was precisely the con-
ditlon of the former liquor status be-
fore the passage of this uncertain, con
Trajectory, and complicated measure
which II will take the courts a genera
tion to thresh out in case the law should
remain that long upon the statute books.
But the law does not give to the people
in all the settlements the liberty that
they had before, because it assumes
that certain territory within the State
is dry territory, and that certain other
territory is wet. Here are two contra
dictory assumptions in the law, which
are likely to cause prolonged litigation,
with the prospect of invalidating the
law altogether on account of the con
tradiction so carried.
The Federal bunch forced the prop.
osition into this channel, not because
the people wished it, but because of the
obligation of Apostle Senator Smoot to
the liquor and other "iuterests' which
retained him in his seat in the Senate. |
But there was very active and vigor- |
GUS prohibition sentiment In the State
that had to receive recognition. The
recognition as received in this law was |
the recognition to be betrayed and de-
ceived. But the facing both ways Fed
eral bunch had to keep its faith with |
of cheating or bamboozling those inter
ests. They demanded the better OF the
bargain in clear, unambiguous terms,
and they got it. The prohibitonists get |
the cold shoulder, and are deluded with
a vain show of temperance, which the
law expressly rcpudiatcs. For instead of
a man going and getting drink openly
and abovcboard as heretofore, he would
be obliged. IN case the saloons are voted
out (Which is all that can possibly be
lone under the election today, 10 buy
beer by the keg, or wine or spirits by
i've gallons or more at time. The law.
therefore, expressly favors the larger
of liquor as against the small.
sr purchases. 1t favors large drinking in
place Of moderate drinking; il favors
excess IN place of temperance; it causes
The person who wishes liquor TO buy
more than he wants in order to get
what he wants. II is q law distinctly. in
'avor of Guzzling as distinguished from
- Il
But. under the deal with the LIQUOR
interests, guided by The imperative de-
nands of the Smoot letter to President
smith frowning upou prohibition, and
'arried out through this fraudulent
liquor law, the issue was conceived in
dishonesty, and made up in fraud. and
S now presented to the people of this
.ity under false pretenses. Those who
IRE In favor of prohibition cannot get
t, even if they should carry the cleo
lon- Those who are nominally in favor
# temperance would compel the users !
# linuor TO be incorporate in their pnr
hase and use. in case they carry the
'ote for what is nomlnally called the 6
dry" side.
The Tribune has been faithful and
IlIgent in pointing out TO the people
he fraudulent nature Of the issue pre.
epted to them in this campaign. which
loses today. We again present that
raud in condensed form herein. There {
las been no dispute of the fairness
f our presentation. nor of the truth s
nd the facts so presented. And now il
up to the people to say whether they {
'ish to vote for a thing that they can q
ot get even If they vote for il, and TO a
ay whether thev wish to allow such S
dishonesty to win in the Z
olitical arena in Utah
MICH coon ROAnS WopR