fcflgfflnfailmm irt M'w Wh
f -n vf
UT
' H
The Commoner
VOLUME 10, NUMBER 25
If
The Commoner.
ISSUED WEEKLY.
Entered at the Poatofllco r.t Lincoln, Nebraalca.
an Bccond-clnBH matter.
WlIJ.MM J. I'llYAN.
1'cl'tor mid I'jopr.'plor
ni'iiAiin I WirrcAi.Ki'.
(K)dnto Kd tor
CiiAru.ra W. linvAN
I'ltlillrlicr
I d'lorlnl Ilcoinn mid I'usIiipm
nri SW'SJO f cititli 121h Ftrect
One Vcnr 91.00
Six MontliM r0
In Clubs of Five or
more, per year... .75
Throe Huntlin 2."
SIiikIc Copy 05
Samplo Copies Free.
Foreign Post. 5c Extra.
SUHSCItll'TIONS can bo sent direct to The Com.
moncr. They can also bo nont through nowspapcrn
which have advertised a clubbing rate, or through
local agents, . hero sub-agents have been appoint
ed. AU remittances should bo sent by postoiuco
money order, express order, or by bank draft on
How Yorlc or Chicago. Do not send individual
checks, stamps or money.
DISCONTINUANCES It is found that a largo
majority of our subscribers prefer not to havo
their Btibnrrlptlons interrupted and their files
broken In caso they fall to remit beforo expiration.
It Is therefore assumed that contlnuanco Is desired
unless subscribers order discontinuance, either
when subscribing or at any tlmo during tho year.
PRESENTATION COPIES Many persons sub
scribe for friends, Intending that tho paper shall
stop at the end of tho year. If Instructions aro
Kiven to that effect thoy will recclvo attention at
tho proper time
RENEWALS Tho dato on your, wrapper shows
tho timo to which your subscription is paid. Thus
January 21, '09, means that payment has ben re
ceived to and Including the last Issuo of January,
1909. Two weeks aro required after money has
boon recolvcd beforo tho dato on wrapper can bo
changed.
CHANGE OF ADDRESS Subscribers requesting
a chango of address must give old as well as new
address.
ADVERTISING Rates will bo .furnlshe'd upon
application.
Address all communications to
THE COMMONER, Lincoln, Neb.
000
Tho American Homestead, a monthly
farm journal of national scopo, will be
-sent to all Commoner subscribers, with
' oiit additional cost, who renew their sub
scriptions during the month of June.
Take advantage of this offer at once and
send in your renewal.
.
Q)0
on tho ground that county option would inter
fore with his sales and lessen IiIb revenues, but
tho ordinary citizen is not interested in the
profits of a browory or a distillery or of liquor
dealers, and I submit that the people who want
tho saloon ought to bo satisfied to retain the
saloon in counties that want them, without in
sisting that thoy shall exist in counties that
aro opposed to thorn. If the liquor interests
insist that liquor shall be sold in a county even
when a majority of the peoplo of tho county aro
opposed to it they can not complain if their
logic is adopted by tho opponents of the liquor
traffic, and they object to liquor being sold in a
a county oven whtin a majority of the peonlo of
the county desire it.
Another common argument, possibly the most
common argument- against county option is that
it is a step toward prohibition. Several men
havo told mo that thoy do not object to the
principle of county option but that thoy aro
opposed to it because they think that the adop
tion of county option would immediately bo
followed by the adoption of state prohibition
It is hardly fair to oppose a thing that is rinht
on the ground that if the thing that is right is
adopted it may lead to the adoption of some
thing that .the person thinks -is wrong That
Bort of argument could be used to prevent tho
adoption of anything good, for even so good a
thing as self government sometimes leads to tho
election of bad men and to the adoption of bad
policies. No one can tell what may follow anv
given act, but it is possible for everyone to form
an opinion as to the righteousness of a pro
posed measure. If, however, one is goinc to
try to calculate the influonce of one proposition
on another ho ought first to know the situation
with which ho has to deal. There are in this
state a certain number of persons who call
themselves prohibitionists, and who aro opposed
to the licensing of the Bale of liquor at any
time, or under any circumstances. It is impos
sible to say just how many there are, who take
this position. If we measure them by the vote ,
cast for tho prohibition ticket they do not
amount to more than three or four per cent of
tho population. But let us suppose that there
are in each of the other parties as many as
there are In the prohibition party. The num
ber would not then amount to more than 12
per cent of the voters of the state. There are
at the other extreme a certain number of per
sons who are opposed to any restriction being
placed upon the sale of liquor. They oppose
any regulation, whether it refers to hours of
closing, method of conducting the saloon, or
the conduct of those in charge of the business.
It is difficult to say how many there are of
these, but let us suppose that they are equal
in number to the prohibitionists, that is, that
they amount to 12 per cent of the voters. If
these estimates are not accurate they are at least
sufficient for the purpose in that they present
the extreme views. If we may estimate that
12 per cent of the voters of the state are op
posed to the licensing of tho sale of liquor any
where, and that 12 per cent are in favor of
saloons everywhere, the two together would
constitute one-fourth of the voting population.
Tho intermediate group, constituting three?
fourths of the voters, believe that the 'use of
liquor is often abused,' and that liquor if sold
at all ought .to be sold under such restrictions
as will reduce the evils of Intemperance to a
minimum. These people do not agree with
either extreme. They do not believe that the
licensing of a saloon Is necessarily immoral and
they do not believe that all restrictions upon
the sale of liquor are an infringement upon
personal liberty. They deal with the conditions
which they have to meet and favor such legis
lation as they believe to be wise. These are
the people whose votes decide the policy of the
state and the policy in different communities.
There are a' great many people who would be
opposed to a saloon in their block- who would
not vote to exclude all saloons from their town.
There are people who would vote against any
saloon in their town who would not vote to
prevent other towns in their county from having
saloons. There are those who would vote to
drive saloons out of their county and yet would
not be willing to prohibit all saloons in the
state, or to prohibit other counties from having
saloons. If a prohibitionist says that county
option would immediately lead to state prohibi
tion there is no reason why anyone should ac
cept his statement as true unless the reasons
given by him are sound ones. An examination
of the situation leads me to believe that, county
option instead of hastening state prohibition
would delay it. I believe that the defeat of
county option would be more likely to hasten
state prohibition. In 1890 the opponents of
prohibition pointed to the fact that Nebraska
had one of the best local option laws in the
United States, and the merits of that law were
spread before the people in every community
But a great deal of progress has been made
since that time. County option has been adopt
ed in a great many states, even in states like
Ohio with her great cities and many breweries
and in states like Kentucky with her great dis
tilleries. The state of Illinois which 'contains
the second city of the union, and many other
large cities, now has township option, which is
a step in advance of Nebraska. Nebraska is
behind the times. If the question of state pro
hibition wore presented to'day it could not be
opposed on the ground that wo have the best
license system in the union. The opponents of
the amendment would have to bear the blame
of having prevented county option, and of hav
ing defeated a measure intended to enforce tho
law against treating.
But, you ask, why ar prohibitionists in favor
of county option if it will delay state proba
tion? Thero are two answers to the question
In the first place, the prohibitionists are help
less without the aid of a much larger groun of
voters who do not call themselves prohibition
ists. It is not sufficient therefore to ask what
the prohibitionists prefer, for until they ail in
a majority they must take not what they would
like best but that which they can secure at d
county option is the thing which they tMnlc
they can secure. But there is another emana
tion of fie position. Like thbso who favoV
other reforms they think it wiser to take a part
of the loaf now than to risk delay in getting
the whole loaf. They will not refuse count?
option even if they would prefer state vrlhfbl
ton They will even take county - optl?n with
the knowledge that it will delay state nrohihi
tlon rather .than refuse county, opt Si and i risk
the rejection of state prohibition. They act :
upon 'the principle usually adopted when one
.is dealing .with a thing which he believes to be
right. Whatever his views about ultimate rem
edies he favors any remedy that promises to
reduce the evil. If you ask my own opinion it
is this, that county option instead of hastening
state prohibition will be, when adopted, the
main argument used by the opponents of state
prohibition. They will say we have county
option, that saloons can be closed in any county,
and will ask why should we go further? 'In
the campaign against county option the very
men who opposed the 8 o'clock closing will use
that law as an argument against county option.
They will admit that it is a good law, and in
sist that with that law the liquor dealer is suffi
ciently restrained.
But I have no thought of entering into an
elaborate discussion of the question of county
option. I only touch upon the "subject because
I find that it is fear of county option that has
led some to oppose the initiative and referen
dum. When that question is up I shall discuss
it more at length, but I would much prefer to
have the discussion of it postponed for two
years, so that we can discuss and settle the
question of the initiative and referendum now.
But I can not allow this opportunity to pass
without calling the . attention of the democrats
of the state to the strength of a moral issue,
and I know of no better place to emphasize this
than Omaha. It is now less than two years
since the legislature passed the 8 o'clock clos
ing law. It was not in the platform of either
party, and I believe a majority of the democrats
of both houses voted against it, but the measure
came before the governor for his signature or
veto. A special train went from Omaha to
Lincoln to carry a crowd of protesting demo
crats. They brought every possible pressure to
bear on the governor. They told him that he
would ruin his own chances for Te-nomination
and re-election if he signed the bill; they told
him that he would ruin the chances of the party
in the state, that he would greatly disturb the
city of Omaha, and greatly injure the state.
But in spite of pressure he signed it, and them
the wrath of the city was turned against him.
When the president of the United States visited
Omaha the governor was not invited to attend
the banquet. There was room at the table for
some of the prosperous brewers, but not room
enough for the governor of the state. It looked
for a while as if the governor would have to
make a circuit around Omaha when going east,
but within two years the governor's act has
been vindicated. The opposition to the 8 o'clock
closing law has disappeared, and even the sa
loon keepers are compelled to admit that a hard
drinker can, if he works industriously, become
drunk enough by 8 o'clock to.last him all night,
ine governor is stronger because he signed it, "
the democratic party is stronger because it was
a democratic governor who refused to be fright
ened by the opponents of the law. Let the vin
dication of the moral principle involved in the
8 o clock closing law be a warning to those
democrats who think it safe to make the demo- '
1 wS. Party alng at the taI1 end of the
wlPrnn?Snl0n,1 P1616 ls a moral sense that '
we can not afford to offend: there is a. nnhHo
conscience that we can not atod to defy U
not ?dth .T011' e 1I(luor interests win
denied thS SGt fi0; " the PeoPle are to be '
rnerelv Sj t0 vote on Publi Questions
merely because they may want to vote on the
p2ararol?UbePSti.lei fate of " wclSt
Jnaraoh be remembered. The democratic nartv
grWtTX ZT l Wh "
frats mav hflnXtenwan? .many of tho emo
thei? ffBo;W t0 dFivlnS th saloon from .
to rule ThyPV nlJe iTt ,he rIght of the People
UtTfoTdrE?6 b A&fSMZ
the initiative and refSdSm hWSi0? ",
nKhtT, e SOr '"tee a s a hBt
pSpularTelemthl7ou0rTJ P?th f.thi8
remove this obstracU0n and with b"8lneVt tb
ocratic convention as tln 31 the next dem-
(r , v ;-v j ,