The Hope pioneer. [volume] (Hope, N.D.) 1882-1964, 1914-06-25
ANTI=SUFFRAGE.

0oA 1<IH0As
The Pioneer has for some time been
running n column devoted to the in
teres1s Of tho equal suffrage move
ment. We have been asked by some
who arc opposed to equal suffrage to
devote some space to their side of tho
matter, and although we heartily en-
dorse the "Votes for Women cam
paign, we feel that in all fairness the
other side should be given an oppor-
tnnity for a hearing. An article pub
lishcd in the Fargo Forum over a
week ago, forms the basis of what fol-
lows:
IRIS YOUNG UTTERS DENIAL.
TO the Forum: The following anony-
nous statements in Suffrage Notes.
in the Fargo Forum of Wednesday,
June 10, and also in the Bismarck
Tribune of June IL:
1.-The ballot for North Dakota wo-
men is actively opposed by the newly
organized Anti-Suirrage association,
Of which Mrs. N. c. Young, of Fargo,
is president, and also by the Personal
Liberty League of the German-Ameri-
can Alliance, which has a candidate
for governor, with two planks in his
platform. one for re-submission of the
prohibition question and the other
against woman's suffrage. Ro-sub-
mission and a%nti-suirrage are political
SiameSe twins
And further, the in]sinuation in an
unsigned editorial entitled "Coinci-
dence," in the Courier-News of Satur-
day, June Is. to the effect that the anti
suffrage organization j connected
with and financed by liquor interests
and those opposed to temperance, are
unqualiiiedly false.
| have lived in the territory and
state OF North Dakota for twenty
seven years, and have always been,
and still am, q prohibitionist and to-
tai abstainer.
All the expenses incurred up to this
time by the Anti-Suflrage organiza-
ton have been paid from my own per-
sonal funds, SO that you may know |
am sincere tn my belief.
Our organization has had no cor
r~e-pondence nor connection whatever
with HE Personal Liberty league.
How far are the a~nti-sutrragc inter-
est> from being hostile to the temper
ance cause. and tbs suffrage %organiza-
tion from being friendly to the prohi-
hitlnn Law. the following facts will at
test:
Mrs. n. G. YOUNG.
FACTS CONCERNING SUFFRAGE AND
PROHIBITION.
Extracts from woman Suffrage"
Speech of Hon. J. Thomas Hetlin of
.\labama. in the House of Represen-
l~alives, May 18th. 1914.
WHAT SUFFRAGE HAS DONE.
So many Of our people are being
mi>lcd on the liquor question by the
>u~tfragi>ts that it is well to submit
some facts on that subject. In no
state in which women have voted on
the question has statewide prohibi-
ton ever been adopted. Nine states
where men alone vote have statewide
prohibition. November 5, 1912, Col
orado voted on statewide prohibition:
15.SI. votes we're cast for the measure
and llG.,,l against. (Sce p. l59, Alb
stract of votes. compiled from official
rctarns hy James b. pearce, secretary
o! the state. Denver. Col.) If 80 per
cent OF the women over II years of age
in Colorado had voted for prOhibi-
ton. the measure would hsvo become
& law by 6,Ol2 majority without a sin
gle male vote being east for prohibi-
ton. there being 2l3.4 25 women over
p years of age in Colorado. (P. lis
Abstract of Census. lolO.)
Wyoming legalized gambling for
about 40 years after women had the
ballot, and had neither statewide pro-
hibition O local option laws.
About six years prior to the adop-
ton OF suffrage in California
Los Angeles voted on local option.
and the measure was defeated nearly
> to /. About a month after women
had the ballot in Los Angeles the
question was again voted on and the
saloons won by nearly 3 to /.
December, 1912, Los Angeles voted
on the question OF nbolishinr free