Coulee City dispatch. [volume] (Coulee City, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1916-10-26
INITIATIVE NO. "a EXPLAINED
Women's Club Woman Takes a Fall
Gu. of the Brewers Bill.
Washington State Federation of WO.
mems Clubs-Mrs. Scion
Shedd, President.
To the Clubwomen of Washington:

lnfOuSn Inc courtesy OF our pres
ident, Mrs. Shedd, I am to have this
opportunity of writing to you on
subject which is very near to my
heart; subject which l believe to be
OF vital interest to every citiven OF
the state and especially to every wo-
man. In presenting this subject,
am writing as one woman to another,
and not officially.
In the recent primary campaign all
candidates were agreed in saying that
they believed that No. 3 should moi
be changed except by a vote of the
people If by any mischance No. "a
should carry, these candidates, theE
safely seated in office, would claim
and with a show of justice at that
that the people themselves had repud-
lated No 3 and that they were absolv.
ed from their prediction pledge. Ask
candidates how they stand on No. Is
and No. "a now before you vote fol
them.
Let us consider this legislation In
detail.
The brewers of Oregon. who are
submitting a similar bill to the voters
Of that state, through their attorney,
have said to the people of Oregon
that they realize there is prejudice
against the words brewer" anc
beer" they therefore ask the people
not to speak of their bill as the "brew
er's bill" or the "beer bill" Wha.
title, think you, women of Washing
ton, do they ask for it? The nursing
mothers bill. If the people of Ore
gon do not rise up in their wrath t.
resent such an insult to the mother
hood of their state and to their OWL
intelligence as citizens, they will de
serve the disaster they invite
How many of you received and reao
the initiative pamphlet, the "Whit,
Hope as, believe, Secretary Howell
AeASSeAOooly IOl AACo ~. w ACu yOl
have read it, you will doubtless agree
with me that better name would b
the Last Hope" the last hope of thu
brewers.
In the argument made for No. "a b.
it's proposer you will find eight prop.
ositions, printed In capital letters, ant
intended to catch the eye of the busy
man, who If he reads at all, will.
read as he runs, and not concern
himself too closely about the truth OF
falsity of assertion of these state
ments, as the first five are either
false or misleading in the effect OF
the truth stated unless one knows the
bill; the third is true, unfortunately
but can be remedied; the last two
if true, may give us hope. 1 would
like to quote these in full and answer
them in full. Space will not permit
if any of you are interested in more
complete treatment than I can give
here, I shall be glad to supply it.
First statement: "No. "a does no.
involve the question of prohibition al
ALL" 1t absolutely nullifies prohibi
ton and restraint so far as it apple;
to beer See sections IA, Is and II
Under the present law each ln
dividual may secure IL quarts of beef
once in 20 days by going to the coun
ty seat, securing permit, etc. There
can be no solicitation of patronage OF
advertising of wares. No. "a specific
ally destroys permit regulation ant
removes the time limit. The proposei
of No. "a calculates that if man pre-
vailed upon his wife to take out /.
beer permit every time he did, fam
lily would have 436 quarts of beef
during year. Under No. "a a family
would have 1875 quarts of beer ever,
day, if they could pay for it.
The brewers have created the i'm
preston that the law is not changed
except as to the source of supply by
the repetition of statements like the
above. The average man under
stands that to mean that the 'per-
nit regulation and time limit" re-
main, he can see no reason why this
limited amount of beer should not be
secured in the state.
1t is in the hope that this false
impression can be maintained until
after election, that the brewers are