The Springfield herald., 1912-10-18
why STATEWIDE PROHIBITION
IS BETTER THAN LOCAL
OPTION.

The launching of prohibitory
amendment to our state consti-
tuition has forced an issue be-
tween local option and statewide
prohibition in Colorado this fall,
as to which is the more effective
for ridding our state of the curse
of the liquor business. In this
article | desire to submit to the
voters of Baca County some reas-
ons why we should support the
amendment rather than a local
option policy.
Let it be understood that this
writer is in favor of a good local
option law, if nothing better
can be had. The restriction
of the liquor business through
the operation of local option
law is certainly better than the
open, unrestricted sale of liquor
anywhere and everywhere. But
those of US who believe that the
manufacture and sale of intoxi-
eating liquor for beverage pur-
poses is intrinsically wrong, and
that absolute prohibition is the
only right way to deal with it,
believe that in this prohibitory
amendment we are offered some
thing better and more et-
fectiVe for the overthrow of the
traffic in our state than we can
ever hope for from local option
And considering the way in
which the liquor forces are fight
ing this amendment and lining up
for local option, it would seem
that they have come to the sam"
conclusion. You aave often
heard the principle declared, Of
two evils choose the lesser "
This is the dilemma which the
Liquor ad7ocates.Hre facing TINS
\ fail. But tne prfncfpfu wf1fcnaf'
who favor the destruction OF the
liauor business should adopt this
fall is, "Of two good things
choose the better" | believe
state wide prohibition to be a
better and more effective policy
than local option for the following
reasons.
First, because the state not
the county or town should be
recognized as the unit in the alb
olution of any evil SO widely
prevalent as the liquor evil. We
are nation of states, not a nat
ion of counties or towns; an
United States, not an United
Counties or Towns. Therefore
the state, and not the county or
the town, is a truer unit from
which to reckon the destruction
of a great national evil like the
liquor traffic. 1t is simply the
question of whether the state is
sovereign and should control its
cities. or whether the cities are
sovereign and should control the
state. What if we had tried to
abolish slavery in the Southern
states by the local option plan, a
county or town at time? We
would have been laughed at, AND
our attempts would have been
called childish. Moreover, we
would likely have had the slavery
question on our hands to this
day. And yet that was but a
sectional matter after all, while
the abolition of the liquor trathc
is national in it's scope, and GER
tainly should be dealt with on no
smaller scale than by states.
Second, because statewide
prohibition is a surer and swift
er way for obtaining ultimate
prohibition. for It will do at once
by one stroke, what it would
take years to accomplish by local
option. Local option, by virtue
of the fact that it is local, and
hence limited in it's scope, is nee
essarily slow and uncertain
process by which to obtain ultl-
mate prohibition throughout the
whole state. If therefore the
matter is left to local option, we
will have a spotted state fol
years, some parts going dry
/ Ia,