Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 41, Number 44, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 February 1909 — Fight Now Warm On County Option [ARTICLE]

Fight Now Warm On County Option

The democratic machine has been working hard to drive into line those representatives who had said they would not support any measure looking to the repeal of the county option law, and it may be that! they will succeed in corralling enough, with the support of a few whiskey republicans to pass the repeal measure in the house, and the Mil may be passed today, Thursday. Wednesday, the measure was hotly argued in the house and after the minority committee report to indefinitely postpone the bill had failed to pass, and the vote was being taken to send "both the Tomlinson and Kieckner bills to engrossment, several representatives took occasion to tell why they voted as they did. The following expressions by two temperance republicans and one temperance democrat are full of good sense and worthy the considers teion of the people of this community, county and city, i" Representative Tallbott declared the bill had not been sired by the Democratic party, that it had no sire which would acknowledge it, but was a "woods” colt "This bill,” said he, “proposes to disfranchise every farmer in the state of Indiana. They, will be unable to vote on the question whether they shall or shall not, have the saloon. Is that the platform you Democrats got into the Legislature on? Did you tell the farmer you were going to disfranchise him? I think not “I want a chance to go to the polls and vote on this question retained. A city ward is not a unit at all and the township is not a unit. The ward boundaries are made by the City Council and the ward is a creature of the county commissioners. When a murderer goes behind the cell of the County Jail—and many go there charged with that crime for no other reason than intoxication —does the ward from which he came pay the bill for his meals and board for bis prosecution? No! The farmer in the remotest part of the county bears the burden equally with the citizens of the ward. Is it right that the man in the out townships shall be denied a right to vote foe or against the "thing for which he trtaxea?*^ Representative King of Wabash declared bis belief that the title of the bill should be changed from “a bill for an act to further regulate, restrict and control the sale of intoxicating liquors,” to read “an act to further restrict the right of the people to regulate the sale of liquor.” He declared that the gentlemen of the opposite Bide of the house should say whether they were carrying out the Democratic platform, which says that the people shall be “given the right of local Belf-government.” The bill, he declared, was demanded by the brewery interests. “I defy you to show any earnest cry from the people for a repeal of this legislation.” Representative Hostetter (Dem.) de-, dared the bill contained a conglomeration of inconsistencies, that it made part of the Bt&te wet to appease >one element and another part dry to appease the temperance element. “I believe this General Assembly. has other business than the passage of a local option repeal bill. The people are not demanding it, and I insist that we get busy and take up matters in which the people are more concerned.’’ If the county option law is repealed the action can be credited to the breweries, saloons, Tom Taggart and men of his kind. The real temperance democrats of this county should be represented by a petition begging the senate not to pass the bill, even Bhould the house do it There are several weak-kneed republicans in the senate and the measure might get through there if it passes the house Make it a nonpartisan measure an keep It on the statute books of Indiana. Kill it without much discussion and let the members get down to business.