tXWi, & WW, i Vfrfnm ' t
The Commoner.
WILLIAM J. BRYAN, EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
: t
VOL. 10, NO. 6
Lincoln, Nebraska, February 18, 1910
Whole Number 474
The Liquor Question in Nebraska
' ' The right of the government to regulate the
Bale of liquor can not he questioned, and the
right to regulate includes the right to prohibit
the open saloon. Some deny the right of the
government to' close the saloon; others insist
that the government has no moral right to
license the sale of liquor, but with a large
majority it is a matter to bo decided by condi
tions. The people, acting through the instru
mentality of government, have, for their own
protection, the right to determine the condi
tions under which liquor shall be sold in any
community, county, or state, and it follows that
the people of the nation have a right to act
. upon the question whenever they, in their wis
dom, think it proper to do so, for whatever con
stitutional objections may be urged to any pro
posed legislation it must be remembered that
constitutions are in the hands of the people,
and can be altered whenever the people see fit
to alter them. .
Conditions differ in different states. In Ne
braska we have a high license law one of the
best of its kind in the union but there is a
growing sentiment in favor of enlarging the
unit of legislation. Under the existing law each
city or village has the right to license or pro
hibit the sale of liquor, the minimum license and
the maximum hours being fixed by statute. It
is quite evident that a majority of the voters
: of our state favor a larger unit, and county
optionsuphap jQhjpMissouri, Texas, Indiana,
Kentucky i and a number, of other states now
have, has been suggested What objection can
be' made to it? The county is the unit for the
enforcement of the lav, and as liquor drinking
' increases crime, it is only fair that the people
. who pay the taxes should have a voice in de
termining the system to be employed for regu-
. lating the sale of liquor.
At the international congress held in London
in July, 1909. in which twenty-five nations were
represented, Lord Alverstone, chief justice of
England, stated that ninety per cent of the crime
passing under his observation was traceable to
drink; and Judge Pollard of one of the police
courts of St. Louis, and Colonel McHardy of
Edinburgh, Scotland, put the proportion at
eighty-five per cent in their respective commu
nities. Have the people who suffer from the
crimes committed, and who bear the burden
of prosecuting the criminals no right to be heard
when the matter of regulation is under consid
eration? To favor county option ,it is not necessary
that one shall favor prohibition in his own or
any other county. One's devotion to popular
government ought not to depend upon his appro
val of any particular policy of government.
Democrats, for instance, will not lose interest
in free 'institutions merely becaiise the repub
licans obtain control of the government. The
people have a right to govern themselves, and
CONTENTS
THE LIQUOR QUESTION IN NEBRASKA
MR. BRYAN IN THE SOUTH
FREE RAW MATERIAL
STRONG BLOWS FOR THE INCOME TAX
WHERE THE OLD SHIP IS LEAKING
' . A PARALLEL
THEY APPRECIATE THE COMMONER
TARIFF AND COST OF LIVING
THE ONLY WAY TO DEMOCRATIC
'' SUCCESS
CURRENT TOPICS
HOME DEPARTMENT
TTTTT-nmTTTTiT- nnitnf -iTVT Atl XT-rn I.
. ': NEWS OF THE WEEK '
WASHINGTON NEWS
I
their right does not depend upon HOW they
exercise that right.
No one doubts the town or city's right to act
upon the liquor question, or the right of the
precinct, or the right of the state. Why ques
tion the right of the county?
It is sometimes objected that prohibition by
the act of the county suspends the right of the
precinct or city to decide the question for itself.
But this is not a valid objection. Every re
straining statute suspends the right of the in
dividual to do the thing prohibited. The larger
group controls the smaller. The city being
larger than the individual decides what the in
dividual may or may not do, subject to the
right of the state to decide what the city may
or may not regulate; and the state in turn is
subject to the provisions of the federal consti
tution. The people of the state, acting as a
whole, fix the limitations upon" the smaller
groups, whether those groups be towns, cities,
precincts or counties, and by the same logic
the people of the county ought to be permitted
to-fix -the limitations upon groups within the
county, except as the county's power to limit
is restrained by the state's superior authority.
It is also objected that county option is only
a step toward state prohibition. This would not
be a valid objection, even if the fact were ad
mitted. If the people of a state have a right
to prohibit the sale of liquor over the entire
state they have a right to authorize the counties
to prohibit within their borders. If the counties
can justly claim the right to rgulatSTlfeIquor
' traffic; in the absertce of State prohibition, it is
not just to deny them this right merely out of
fear that the exercise of the right may lead
to the adoption of state prohibition. A man
must be very anxious to continue the open sa-
loon to deny to the people of a county the right
to act on the subject merely because he is afraid
that the exercise of- that right may lead the
people of the state to ask for state prohibition.
And, it may be added, it looks like a confession
of weakness on the part of the liquor interests.
If, as they contend, prohibition is a failure, the
attempt to enforce prohibition by counties ought
to make that fact apparent, and thus lessen the
chance of state prohibition.' And then, too, the
liquor dealers ought to recognize that they can
not logically oppose state prohibition if they
oppose county option. If those interested in
the sale of liquor insist that liquor should be
sold in a county although a majority of the
voters of the county object to it, how can they
complain if their own logic is turned against
them, and the people of the state insist that no
liquor shall be sold in any county, even when
a majority of the people of the county ask for
it?
The present law requiring the saloons, where
ever saloons are licensed, to close at eight
o'clock, has worked well in practice and should
be continued. A later hour might be more con
venient for some, but many are injured by late
closing compared with the few who are incon
venienced by early closing, so that the evils of
late closing outweigh the advantages.
We have a law against treating in Nebraska,
but it is universally ignored. We should have
a statute placing the penalty on the saloon
keeper, and providing that it shall be cause for
forfeiture of license if the saloonkeeper permits
treating in his place of business. Treating is
one of the worst features of the modern saloon,
and no defense can be made of it. Those who
desire to drink in moderation will, as a rule
favor this law, because they are often forced
by custom to treat and to accept treats when
they do not care to do so. Only those interest
ed in the sale of liquor can find objection to it,
and objection from such a source is an argu
ment in favor of such a law rather than
against it.
The liquor question has been made acute
in Nebraska by the unscrupulousness of the
liquor interests. Instead of the saloon of former
days, owned by a resident and amenable, to
some extent at least, to the sentiment of the
community, wo have the branch saloon, owned
and operatod by a producer of liquor. This
system adds the evils of the trust system to the
ovils of the saloon Itself. Whenever a' com
munity Attempts to deal with the saloon ques
tion, instead of having to deal with one of Its
own citizens it finds itself in a strugglo with
great corporations which operate over a largo
area, and have a pecuniary interest in cultivat
ing the appetite for drink; instead of settling
the question by consulting Its own voters It
must engage in a war with a foreign power.
The saloon not every one, but as a rule Is
in alliance with vice. It Is constantly used to
debauch politics, and to prevent the intelligent
consideration of public questions. The liquor
interests interfere in all matters that may oven
romotely affect their Interests. They made
themselves odious at tho last session of the
Nebraska legislature. Tho democrats had a
majority in both branches for the first time In ,
tho state's history, and tho splendid record of
the legislature has but one blot on it, and that
blot was put there by the liquor inerests. They
controlled enough of the senators to prevent
the submission of the initiative and referendum.
They were willing to deny to tho people of tho
state the right to express themselves on any
question, rather than risk the use of tho initia
tive and referendum for tho submission of tho
liquor question. Insolence, arrogance and im
pudence can not go farther.
The democratic party can not afford to act
as the mouthpiece of tho liquor Interests. It
can have nothing in common with tho selfish,
mercenary and conscienceless crusade that tho
liquor Interests have organized against the home
and tho state against private virtue and public
morals.
IN THE PANAMA ZONE
Whllo at Panama Mr. Bryan learned that ho
caTried the canal zone by a largo majority at
a mock election held by tho Americans on elec
tion day. There is considerable speculation aa
to the cause of this. Was it due to the fact
that the employes are picked men? Or is it
because they were free from the coercion prac
ticed by the big corporations in the states? Or
was it because their employers could take an
unbiased view of tho situation? Or should wo
credit It to the influence of ,the distinctively
democratic member of tho commission, tho
genial and popular ex-senator, Blackburn, whoso
resignation is so universally regretted by tho
employes?
MR. BRYAN IN THE SOUTH
We are approaching tho Isthmus and I am
expecting to find the Canal Zone full of interest.
I spent one day in Havana and another in San
tiago as I passed through Cuba. Havana is im
proving and will doubtless continue to improve,
although the Cuban moves with the leisure
which characterizes tho tropics. The sewage
system so badly ireeded is still "under consid
eration." The new administration has re-Instated
tho lottery which President Palma refused
to sanction. This Is a great mistake; its in
fluence is demoralizing and the small Income
derived from it by the government is infinitesi
mal when compared with the injury done to
tho population.
At Santiago I visited San Juan Hill that
part of "Fame's eternal camping ground" on
which so many reputations were won. I was
a little surprised at the diminutive appearance
of a neighboring hill (named Kettle Hill be
cause of two immense sugar kettles that are
rusting to death there) which Colonel Roose
velt charged. I was surprised, I say, because
it seems Impossible that so. much charging
could have been done on so small an eminence.
It is now owned by Mr. Tingley, the theosophist
and will be included in the campus of the
college.
The historic spots on San Juan are marked
by monuments and a colored custodian supplies
visitors with souvenirs of the battle fought there.
I brought away an iron ramrod. It has a his-
-wiWJh M'fofr&wfcrf I
aJm.