The daily Alaskan., 1916-12-15
EDITORIAL
CONGRESS AND THE ANTI-LI-
QUOR LAW

Ire pCNUlG or ALdShdJ pS hASA4 votes on November ', last, decided taa. Alaska is ready for the en- acrmeut Of a prOhibltory liquor law. The vo.e was decisive; there Is 10 doubt about that, but a ques- lion has been raised, alleging that t-a vote is not binding inaSmuch as the Territorial Legislature which au r.o~lzcG it had no power to do so. I4as may be true, yet the vote, 1t must be conceded, registered the VII cf the people upon this ques- r.gu. Therefore, there is small doubt that the will of the people w.u find expression in the en- u.tmeu. Of a prohibitOry law.
 Clearly, in the opinion of The Guuire, rhe legislature has not the authority to Iegislate on the ques- ou of prohibiting the maDutac- ture, importation or sale of sQitu- ous aud malt liquors. The or same act approved August 24, I.i2, does not convey to the legis- laturc, the power to control the I- guUr traffic. On the contrary, that power IS expressly reserved to con grgss and it is that body that must ,uacr a prohjbjtOry measure, Ii gue Is tO be passed. Also, clearly 3r ts within the power of the legis- lature to memoriaIize congress in ta.s resrect and possibly to indicate the kind of a law that should Oe passed. The referendum submitted ;y the people, and on which they voted, provides that the prOhibi- ton Uf the sale, manufacture and importation of liquors in Alaska slaIl ceuse on January l, 1918, or, .u ether words, that the inhibi- ton shall take place on that date. Hur The power of the les stature to IiN any date may well be doubted and congress may only look upon a memorial from the legislature as Ucfug merely advisory or for the -d:Lauce of congress. That a bill will be presented to congress, pro giuiug for the prohibition of the sale oI liquor in the Territory is un doubted, but whether on January l, 1918, is another phase Of the Ques- lion. IL is also quite probable that congress will respect the will of the peCule of Alaska and pass the bill. as it is not to be believed that that body will disregard their de- s.res, and especially so in view CT national sentiment in the mat ter cf prohibitOTy laws. The peo- pIe Of Alaska have a right to eX- Dect that their action will be giY- eu full force and effect by the en- actueat of an adequate law. Wheth CT the law can be successfully en- forced need not be discussed here. lime, which usually determines all things, will also determine this.
 During the recent campaign, the opponents of the dry referendum lpIebiscite, some of the Interior papers call it), pointed to tue to- taI failure of Alaska's first pro prohibtory law, to prohibit. It was Q rank failure-that must be admitted; but it was failure be- cause it was not backed by public sentiment. Congress gave it to AL aska but few people had asked for 1t. People as a rule do not take kindly to laws that they have not asked for and do not want. There fore, because a prohibitOry law was g. failure in Alaska twenty years ago, it does not follow that the failure will be repeated in 1918 or aup subsequent period. Times change and the people change with them. That at least ought 10 be evideLt to the most careless and ulobseTyiug,