Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1917-03-27
HOUSE DEFEATS LOCAL OPTION
BY VOTE OF 127 TO 72|

sion and ask that their counties shall have
the privilege OF determining the license
question by popular vote of the people, this
Legislature has repeatedly refused that
privilege.
This question of county option has been
before the people of the State for many
years and the demand for this legislation,
especially from the rural counties. Is very
insistent. ] am frank to concede that such
legislation will not in the least affect such
cities as Philadelphia, Pittsburgh Scranton
and Wilkes-Barre but, on the other hand,
] cannot see how there is to be any justice
and any recognition of mutual rights so
long as these cities refuse the rural coun-
ties the right of suffrage on the license
question
PEOPLE DEMAND RIGHTS
This same condition existed for num-
Der of years in the State of Nebraska. The
members OF the Legislature from the cities
Of Omaha and Lincoln lined up with the
liquor interests and steadfastly refused to
give the county districts county local op-
ton law. What happened? The voters of
the state last November rose up in their
Indignation and elected a Legislature that
not only gave the county districts local OPP
tion. but also put the state dry. and let me
say right now that the liquor interests OF
this state will see the folly of their present
course in fighting to defeat the loca optio
bill. Pennsylvania is one Of only two
States in the Union in which local option
in some form has not been granted the
voters The present increasing sentiment
indicates that the people will soon demand
more than local option.
I'VE like to think of Pennsylvania as a
progressive state. and we are in some mat
ters. for we have changed and adjusted the
laws on our statute books to suit the adj
vanced sent iment of the times upon almost
every other question than the regulation of
the liquor traffic. For thirty years we have
made no change in these laws, not since the
Brooks license law was passed in 1887.
Under the present system, in many OF
our counties, when Judge is TO be elected.
the only question asked Is lis he wet or
dry? The candidates fitness for the office.
or whether he is learned in the law, is not
considered as he is chosen solely on the
question as TO whether or not he will grant
licenses and submit to you that this sys-
tenn is wrong and is not good>for our courts
nor creditable to the responsible lawmakers
who have forced our courts into such po-
stiOn.
AT the present time we have eleven coun-
ties in this state which are dry. They
have been put dry by the arbitrary action
of their Judges. In every one of these
counties there are u considerable number
of persons who are dissatisfied with this con-
dition. If those counties had been made
dry by ma jority vote of the people they
WOuu DOW III SubNllSSloIl' TtCpSHIHIhs the
right of the ma ajOrty to rule. But their
contention is that the present policy in
these eleven counties Is th~ arbitrary opin-
ion of one man or. as is the case in some
counties where there are Associate Judges.
the opinion of two men or possibly three.
"On the last day of February, the House
of Representatives. at Washington passed
the Senate bill making the District of CO.
lumbia dry. This measure passed both
the House and Senate by virtually n two
thirds vote. Up until the time that bill
finally passed the House. the agents OF the
liquor interests in Pennsylvania were con-
tnually on the job at Washington arguing
for a referendum to the voters. They in
sisted that it was grossly unfa!: for the