Jasper County Democrat, Volume 11, Number 29, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 August 1908 — NOBODY WILL BE FOOLED. [ARTICLE]

NOBODY WILL BE FOOLED.

It is really amusing to see the frantic efforts being made by the republican press of Indiana to make the local option planks in the platforms of both parties the great over-shadowing issue of the campaign. The fact is both parties have declared for what Is supposed to be advanced ground on the saloon question—the republicans for county unit local option, which would make every part and parcel of every county in Indiana either wet or dry, and the democrats for local option by the township and ward unit, which leaves the matter for the people of the immediate locality affected to decide whether or not they want intoxicating liquors sold in their midst, and which is true local option.

The latter plan will make more dry territory than the former, for in a great many of the hopelessly wet counties like Lake, Marion, Vigo, AHen, St. Joseph, Laporte, etc., most all of the out townships now are or can be made dry under the township and ward unit, while under the county unit all would be wet, and even though the people of a single ward or township were unanimous against the licensed sale if intoxicants in their midst, If the county voted wet (under the republican county unit plan) saloons could be established in their midst in spite of them. , Now isn’t it better to let the people of the locality most vitally Interested settle this matter than to have saloons forced upon them whether they want them or not? Is it not better to have *part of a county "dry” than to have it all "wet?" Suppose, for example, the people of Remington and Carpenter tp., were unanimous against the saloon and an election should be held in Jasper county under ,the county unit plan and the county should vote wet. saloons could be opened up in Remington again and the people there would be absolutely helpless In the matter.

Is that right? Is it Just? We are well aware that the Anti-Saloon League of the state, which has lined up with the republican party and by such action set back the cause of temperance many years, is now trying to make people believe that if the remonstrance law now in force is retained—which both platforms approve of doing—that if a county votes "dry” it npist be dry throughout, but if it Fites "wet” the vote doesn’t mean anything and the people can then go ahead an* remonstrate any parts of the county dry that is opposed to liquor! Such a fool proposition as this will not blind any intelligent voter in the state, and it seems strange that such an imbecile idea would be urged. The Democrat has submitted the question to scores of the best lawyers in Indiana, irom all sections of the state as well as in this section, and all confirm our former published statement r that if a county unit local option law is enacted,

such as the Anti-Saloon League and the republican platform declares for, counties must be wet. or dry, and the decision of the voters of the county at such elections must be final for two years, or until another election is held. Laws are supposed to be based on equity and common sense, and to say that if a county local option election is held with the county as a unit, that if it votes dry it must be dry, but that if it votes wet it doesn’t mean anything and the voters have another chance at it, is too silly to be given serious thought. No, the frantic efforts of our republican contemporaries to induce temperance democrats to vote the republican state ticket because of its county unit plank will not avail them a single vote from an intelligent voter. . The proposition is too plain to deceive anyone, and the editors of such sheets would do better to advocate the blessings of a “protective” tariff and try to make their readers believe that the foreigner pays the tax than to keep harping away on such a damfool proposition as this.