County Option 
 
 In Indiana 
 
 By 
 
 HON. J. FRANK HANLY 
 
 Ex-Governor of Indiana 
 
 Published By 
 
 THE AMERICAN ISSUE PUBLISHING COMPANY 
 
 WRSTERVILLE, OHIO 
 
 19 10 
 
^i^^ 
 
County Option in Indiana 
 
 i 
 
 By HON. J. FRANK HANLY 
 
 Ex-Governor of Indiana 
 
 Fellow Citizens: 
 
 It is not only the privilege, it is the right and the bounden duty of every 
 man living in a free commonwealth to speak the truth to his fellows, without fear 
 or favor, as God gives him to see and understand the truth, concerning any matter 
 affecting the public welfare. One's countrymen are entitled to the reason for 
 the faith by which he walks. They may not accept his faith, but his reasons for 
 his faith are their just due. 
 
 This is peculiarly true of one who has held at the hands of his fellows high 
 place in the conduct of the commonwealth's affairs. 
 
 I am here today to embrace that privilege, to claim that right and discharge that 
 duty concerning a matter which I have long felt and do now feel to be of deep 
 and abiding importance to this people — a people, who, in the light of my many 
 limitations and temperamental defects, have signally honored me, making me 
 thereby their debtor to the end of my days, be they few or many. 
 
 For months I have not spoken on any public question. But the time has 
 come when conditions in the state and gratitude for past favors compel me to 
 break my silence. 1 speak disinterestedly. If I know my soul I have no wish 
 but the public good, no desire but the happiness of this people. The fires of self- 
 interest burn low on the hearthstone of my heart. My country has become my 
 larger self, the dearest part of me. I have no machine or organization to pro- 
 mote; no patronage to bestow; no favorites to reward; no foes to punish. I seek 
 no office; no public preferment of any kind. There is absolutely nothing within 
 your power to give or bestow that I desire you to do for me other than to bear 
 me for my cause, to give consideration to what I say relating to matters of public 
 concern, and to permit me to continue to abide among you and share your destiny, 
 whatever that destiny may be, until my life's measure shall be filled. 
 
 I am conscious that it will be difficult for some men to accept this statement. 
 Themselves accustomed to act only upon motives of personal interest, they are 
 slow to believe that another may act without regard to such interests. And yet 
 the statement is absolutely true and has beeo true every hour for more than five 
 years. 
 
 There came a moment early in my administration of the state government 
 when I was compelled to choose between public obligation and personal ambi- 
 tion; between duty and popularity; between service and subserviency; between 
 exposure of wrong and condonation of crime. Face to face with these alternatives 
 
 27230.3 
 
4 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA ^ 
 
 and with .conditions from which I could not turn aside, I made my choice. 1 
 chose public obligation, duty, service and exposure of wrong, rather than personal 
 ambition, popularity, subserviency and condonation of crime. I knew then the 
 choice I was making would close the doors of further public preferment against 
 me. That henceforth I would not be permitted to pass through the gates. I 
 knew the work I was about to undertake would alienate many men and arouse 
 the antagonism of powerful and unscrupulous special interests; that the service I 
 was about to perform would in all human probability take me out of official life 
 forever. Not that you would be ungrateful, or that you would not ultimately 
 understand, but that passions would be aroused and special interests offended — 
 passions that would be long in dying, special interests that would not rest or 
 sleep. I made the choice with full knowledge of the cost. Satisfied with the 
 choice then, I am happy in it now. The results obtained for you and foV this 
 goodly commonwealth have been and still are worth the cost. 
 
 For having made the choice I then made, I claim neither distinction nor 
 special credit. A man in my position could not have chosen otherwise. I 
 mention it now only that you may have the true standpoint from which to view 
 and weigh what I now submit; and because the people ©f the state are still con- 
 cerned with the chief result of the choice I made then. 
 
 The making of the choice really began with the hour of my induction into 
 the executire office. In my inaugural address, after pointing out the defects of 
 and the burdens imposed by the Nicholson Law, the statute then in force, I 
 recommended to the general assembly its amendment in these words: 
 
 "This condition is intolerable, and ought not to continue beyond the day 
 of your adjournment and the publication of your enactments. It destroys the 
 peace and disturbs the order and tranquility of society, creates constant and un- 
 ceasing turmoil among the people, subjects them to frequent trials and constant 
 expense, and finally ends in the defeat of their often and solemnly expressed will. 
 
 "The statute should be so amended that the remonstrance provided for shall 
 be against the granting of license to any and all applicants, and where successful, 
 that it shall be unlawful thereafter for the board of commissioners to grant a 
 license to any applicant therefor during a period of two years from the filing of 
 said remonstrance. Such a remonstrance will strike directly at the traffic, and 
 not at the individual. If successful, it will exclude the business from a township 
 or ward for a period of two years, and give peace, order and repose to the com- 
 munity. 
 
 i^t * * * * 
 
 "Public sentiment relative to such legislation never was as strong nor as 
 purposeful as it is today, and I would, if I could, direct that sentiment along 
 safe and practical lines. I therefore appeal to you, and to the great body of the 
 people of Indiana, without regard to party affiliations, to join in the amendment 
 suggested. The question is not a party question. It is above and beyond all 
 parties and is as broad as our common citizenship, as deep as our free institu- 
 tions, and as abiding as righteousness itself.** 
 
 When that was written the saloon and the brewery had long been a domi- 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 nant force in Indiana politics. They had frequently controlled party conventions 
 and dictated party platforms and had more than once given orders to general 
 assemblies, as to what legislation should or should not be enacted, "No 
 sumptuary legislation" ran through party platforms and echoed throughout 
 legislative halls. Reforms had been effected and advances had been made from 
 time to time in the matter of the regulation of the traffic, but the advances were 
 timid and halting, and the reforms for the most part ineffective. 
 
 No citizen of the state could voice in any legal way his opposition to the 
 saloon. The recommendation then made was the beginning of the movement foi 
 your enfranchisement on that question. The measure met with the most i:\ 
 iistent and unscrupulous opposition, but it voiced the conscience of the enlight 
 ened Christian manhood and womanhood of the state. An aroused public 
 opinion made way for it. Before the session ended it was crystalized into law, 
 and for the first time in the life of this generation, you were given a voice on this 
 question. The franchise then conferred upon you was limited in its scope and 
 cumbersome to exercise. We were told that you did not desire it; that yon 
 would not use it if conferred upon you; that you would order its repeal at the 
 next session of the general assembly. Our friend, Albert Lieber, promised to fill 
 both chambers of the legislature with an adverse majority at the next election. 
 
 But they mistook your thought, misapprehended your desire, misinterpreted 
 your purpose and underestimated its strength. 
 
 Here is the state as it was 
 when you began the campaign 
 under the remonstrance law: 
 
 And here is the state at the 
 end of your campaign under 
 the franchise then given van: 
 
6 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA* 
 
 In little over two years you had so used the limited franchise the remon- 
 strance law gave you, that you had eliminated the traffic from many city wards 
 and more than 800 townships and had closed 1,687 saloons. 
 
 The difference between these two maps indicates the extent to which you 
 made use of the limited franchise then conferred. 
 
 Defeated in the succeeding election in obtaining an adverse majority in 
 the general assembly for the law's repeal, the liquor interests of the state sought 
 its nullification and your disfranchisement at the hands of the supreme court of 
 the state on the ground of its unconstitutionality, but the validity of the law was 
 sustained and the principle of local option given judicial sanction and adjudicated 
 status. 
 
 Reformation was now making real progress. The first step had been taken. 
 It had been approved by the people and sustained by the supreme court. A pre- 
 cedent had been established. 
 
 But under the remonstrance law the will of the majority could not always be 
 made effective. Good as far as it went, it stopped short of your complete en- 
 franchisement. Under it the lack of a majority of one on the remonstrance in a 
 single township or ward, was sufficient to set aside the will of the people of a 
 whole county. Under it in many instances the minority became the master and 
 usurped the authority of the majority, planting saloons in country township and 
 in city ward against the wish of the great body of the people of both county and 
 city. In such instances a county or a city could not be made "dry" no matter what 
 the state of public opinion or how great the majority against the traffic. A 
 striking illustration of the ineffectiveness of the remonstrance law was furnished 
 by the county of Putnam, and the city of Greencastle. Both the county and the 
 city as a whole were "dry" by an overwhelming majority. But in a single ward 
 of the city having a total electorate of less than 200, a majority could not be 
 obtained on a remonstrance, and saloons were opened and maintained in that 
 ward within the very shadow of Depauw University, with its student body of a 
 thousand young men and women, making both the city and the county "wet," 
 and foisting upon a majority of the people of both city and county against their 
 expressed desire and will, the shame and burden of the open saloon. 
 
 To meet these defects in the remonstrance law, additional legislation was 
 needed — county option by ballot. And so the fight for the county option law and 
 for your complete enfranchisement was begun. I was in that fight. I was in it 
 as a citizen in the convention of my party. In it officially as the governor of the 
 state. And in it later on as counsel for the people before the supreme court. 
 Indeed, there are those who say the law then obtained is my child. In a sense 
 it is, but in a larger, truer sense it is not. It was born of the Christian conscience 
 of the people of this splendid commonwealth and of the great conviction of a great 
 contention and of a great party, and of the desire and efforts of a multitude of 
 men in all parties. It is the people's child. They have adopted it. It needs no 
 other father. They adopted it with the full knowledge of how and where it was 
 conceived, after full consideration and by the solemn ceremony of formal elec- 
 tions held in eighty-two counties of the state, by a majority of more than 73.000. 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 1 
 
 It is the child of need and of opportunity. It is the issue of their union. 
 
 This second measure met with more insistent and unscrupulous opposition 
 than the first, but it so voiced the conscience of the enlightened Christian man- 
 hood and womanhood of the state, that an aroused public opinion made way for 
 it as it had made way for its predecessor. 
 
 It was no sooner passed, however, than the liquor interests sought its repeal 
 under the whip and spur of the state organization of a great party, with sinews 
 of war collected from and furnished by the saloonkeepers and the brewers, but in 
 this they failed again. Thwarted in every effort at repeal, they again sought the 
 law's nullification and your disfranchisement in the supreme court. Here they 
 failed again, but at the hands of a divided court, three of the judges sustaining 
 the law, two declaring it invalid. 
 
 Again we were told that you did not desire the larger franchise we sought 
 to confer upon you. That you would not use it if it were given you. But again 
 they mistook your thought, misapprehended your desire, mininterpreted your 
 purpose and underestimated its strength. 
 
 Without action on your part the law would have accomplished nothing. 
 Untouched by you it would have lain inert, a weapon unwielded. Use could be 
 made of it only when initiated by you. You were under no obligation to use it. 
 
 r^^jg — 1 ^^ ■* ■ "I But again you showed your approval of what 
 
 M g iJI had been done and your value of the franchise 
 
 'T^ given you by the use you made of the law. 
 
 ■■ — -* In eighteen months yo« held eighty-two 
 
 count}'- elections, in which almost a half mil- 
 lion votes were cast, and in which the law 
 was approved by a net majority of more than 
 73.000, and in which sixty-nine counties were 
 made "dry" and 989 saloons closed. Here i> 
 the state at the close of that campaign: 
 
 The campaign was exciting and dramatic 
 and of immeasurable educative value. You 
 pressed the foe at every point and lost in but 
 few instances, and in some of these by a ma- 
 jority so small as to assure your success next 
 year if the law is not repealed by legislative 
 act. or nullified by court decision. 
 / yH .^T T^^^ second great step has been taken. 
 
 ^^^ B^ i^ / Another precedent has been established. We 
 
 JIBHlc .i^\^/ ^sr' have had the law in actual operation less 
 
 V^' >/ than two rears. The saloons eliminated under 
 
 it have been all closed only a single year. But we can already begin to make 
 intelligent estimate of its value. 
 
 Driven from the field of morals, the saloon and brewery advocates sought 
 the domain of economics, hoping to find there something with which to prop their 
 falling house. 
 
 ■ I 
 
8 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 They pointed to the fact that every saloonkeeper was compelled to keep a 
 building in which to carry on the traffic. 
 
 That every such building represented tangible property. That if the saloon- 
 keeper did not himself own the building, he paid high rental for it to him who did 
 own it. That these buildings were usually of great value because of their location 
 in the heart of the business districts of towns and cities.. 
 
 That wherever a county voted "dry" these buildings would be closed and 
 would* remain empty, entailing loss of rental to their owner and commercial 
 injury to the town or city in which they were situated. That in the larger cities 
 the injury would be substantial and permanent, especially in the towns and cities 
 of counties like Noble and Jackson, each with 25 saloons; Howard, with t.'j; De- 
 catur and Green, each with 29; Fountain, with 32; Jefferson, with 37; Daviess, 
 with 39; Miami, with 42; Vermilion, with 44; Elkhart, with 45; Grant, with 57; 
 Delaware, with 82, and Madison, with 107. 
 
 That in these fourteen counties 620 business rooms would be closed and 
 become dead property. That in the sixty-nine counties voting "dry," 989 places 
 would be closed, entailing an aggregate loss in rental alone of more than a mil- 
 lion dollars annually. 
 
 And some good men believed them, and alarmed for their financial interests, 
 voted "wet." 
 
 They insistently proclaimed that every saloonkeeper owned stock and fix- 
 tures used in the traffic, of substantial value, aggregating many thousands of 
 dollars. That all these were upon the tax duplicates of the respective counties, 
 townships, towns and cities where situated, bearing their share of the cost of 
 county, township, town and city government. 
 
 That wherever a county voted "dry" these valuable stocks and fixtures would 
 be removed or rendered worthless, and would fall from the tax duplicates, entail- 
 ing great financial loss to their owners, and depleting the tax duplicates to the 
 extent of many thousands of dollars. 
 
 That to recoup the losses to their revenues consequent upon this depletion 
 of the tax duplicate's, counties, townships, town and cities would be compelled to 
 increase their tax rates for every purpose. 
 
 And some good men believed them, and, alarmed lest they should be called 
 upon to bear an increased burden of taxation, they voted "wet." 
 
 Under the law $100 must be paid by every successful applicant for liquor 
 license, into the treasury of the county in which he makes application for license 
 to sell, before a license can issue, which fee becomes a part of the school tuition 
 fund in such county, and every incorporated town is authorized to charge an ad- 
 ditional license fee of not more than $150, and every incorporated city an additional 
 license fee of not more than $250, as such town or city may, by ordinance, decree, 
 such fees going into the general fund of the municipality to which they are paid. 
 
 The saloon and brewery advocates pointed to these facts and declared with 
 emphasis that wherever a county voted "dry" in which any considerable number 
 of saloons were situated, tax levies for tuition purposes in the townships and for 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 9 
 
 corporation purposes in the towns and cities, would necessarily be greatly' in- 
 creased. 
 
 They pointed out that Noble county would lose annually $2,500 in tuition 
 revenue, and her cities, if they were charging the full license fee allowed by law, 
 $6,250 in corporation revenue. 
 
 That the county of Jackson would lose annually $2,500 in tuition revenue and 
 her cities $6,250 in corporation revenue. 
 
 The county of Howard, $2,700 in tuition revenue, her towns and cities, $6,750. 
 
 The county of Decatur, $2,900; her cities, $7,250. 
 
 The county of Greene, $2,900; her cities, $7,250. 
 
 The county of Fountain, $3,200; her cities, $8,000. 
 
 The county of Jefferson, $3,70o; her cities, $9,250. 
 
 The county of Daviess, $3,90o; her cities, $9,750. 
 
 The county of Miami, $4,200; her cities, $10,500. 
 
 The county of Vermilion, $4,400; her cities, $11,000. 
 
 The county of Elkhart, $4,500; her cities, $11,250. 
 
 The county of Grant, $5, 700; her cities, $14,250. 
 
 The county of Delaware, $8,200; her cities, $20,500. 
 
 The county of Madison, $10,700; her cities, $26,750. 
 Total annual loss of tuition revenue to fourteen counties, $48,500. 
 
 Total annual loss in corporation revenue to the cities in fourteen counties, 
 $121,250. 
 
 That the sixty-nine counties that had voted "dry" would lose annually 
 tuition revenues aggregating $98,900, and their cities, if they were charging the 
 maximum license fee, $247,250. 
 
 That these losses could be recouped only by raising the tax rate for tuition 
 purposes upon all the property remaining on the tax duplicate in every county 
 voting "dry," and the corporation tax in every town or city voting "dry." 
 
 And some good men believed them, and, alarmed lest they would have to 
 bear an increased taxation for school tuition purposes in the county and corpora- 
 tion purposes in the city, voted to continue this blood-money source of revenue 
 with which to educate their children and meet municipal expenses. 
 
 These dire prophecies frightened many men. Since they were made scarcely 
 a year has gone by. The saloons in the sixty-nine counties voting "dry" have 
 scarcely all been closed a year. But, brief as the time has been, we are able now 
 to put over against the "wet" prophecies of yesterday, the "dry" facts of today, 
 and never did facts work greater confusion to prophecies. 
 
 The 989 business rooms where last year saloons were operated, and which 
 have been closed by the votes of the people in these sixty-nine counties, have 
 been filled, save only one here and there in undesirable quarters of the town or 
 . city and a few stubbornly held by the liquor interests in the hope that the law 
 under which they were closed would be declared unconstitutional or be repealed 
 by the general assembly now to be elected, or the verdict of the electors reversed 
 It the next county local option election. 
 
 Rents have not decreased. Property has not depreciated in value. On the 
 
to COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 contrary, every legitimate business throughout these sixty-nine counties has feiL 
 the impulse and tkrill of the $10,000,000 that have been diverted this year from 
 the coffers of saloons and breweries into the useful channels of trade. 
 
 Bank deposits have increased, store bills long barred by the statute of limi- 
 tations have been paid, and cash is being received for merchandise, where credit 
 was formerly asked. Saloon stocks have disappeared and saloon fixtures have 
 gone back to the breweries that owned them. But the tax duplicates of the "dry" 
 counties have not been depleted; they have been increased. Nor have tax levies 
 been raised more frequently in ''dry" counties, townships, towns and cities than 
 in "wet" counties, townships, towns and cities. Indeed, quite the reverse is true. 
 They have been decreased more frequently in "dry" counties, townships, towns 
 and cities than in "wet" counties, townships, towns and cities. 
 COUNTY TAX RATE COMPARISONS. 
 
 Of the seventy "dry" counties in the state the tax levy laid in 1909, to be 
 paid in 1910, levied by the respective county authorities with the full knowledge 
 that these counties were "dry" and would continue to be so throughout the year 
 for which the levy was made, was increased in but twenty-five, or 35 per cent of 
 them, as follows: 
 
 Bartholomew Howard Miami Pike Starke 
 
 Crawford Lawrence Montgomery Pulaski Switzerland 
 
 Grant Madison Ohio Putnam Union 
 
 Hancock Marshall Orange Rush Vermilion 
 
 Harrison Martin Parke Scott Washington 
 
 Of the twenty-two "wet" counties in the state, the tax levy laid in 1909, to 
 be paid in 1910, levied by the respective county autorities, was increased in eleven. 
 or 50 per cent of them, as follows: 
 
 Blackford Floyd Laporte 
 
 Clark Franklin Porter Spencer 
 
 Dubois Lake Posey Tippecanoe 
 
 A difference in favor of the "dry" counties of 15 per cent. 
 
 Of the seventy "dry" counties in the state, the tax levy laid in 1909, to be 
 paid in 1910, levied by the respective county authorities with the full knowledge 
 that these counties were "dry" and would continue to be so throughout the year 
 for which the levy was made, was actually reduced in twenty-nine, or 41.4 per 
 cent of them, as follows: 
 Adams Elkhart Henry 
 
 Benton Fayette Huntington 
 
 Brown Fountain Jackson 
 
 Clay Fulton Jay 
 
 Clinton Gibson Jefferson 
 
 Daviess Hamilton Johnson 
 
 Of the twenty-two "wet" counties in the state, the tax levy laid in 1Q09, to 
 be paid in 1910 levied by the respective county authorities, was decreased in four, 
 or 18. 1 per cent of them, as follows: 
 Cass St. Joseph Vanderburg Vigo 
 
 Newton 
 
 Wabash 
 
 Noble 
 
 Warren 
 
 Owen 
 
 Wells 
 
 Randolph 
 
 White 
 
 Shelby 
 
 Whitley 
 
 Tipton 
 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 II 
 
 A difference in favor of the "dry" counties of 23,3 per cent. 
 
 Or, the county tax rate in seventy "dry" counties has been increased in only 
 35 per cent of them, but in the twenty-two "wet" counties the tax rat« has been 
 increased in 50 per cent of them. 
 
 Of the seventy "dry" counties the tax rate has been reduced in 41.4 per cent 
 of them, but in the twenty-two "wet" counties the tax rate has been reduced in 
 only 18. 1 per cent of such counties. 
 
 "Dry" Benton ficcreased, "Wet" Blackford increased. 
 
 "Dry" Clay decreased. "Wet" Clark increased. 
 
 "Dry" Daviess decreased. "Wet" Dubois increased. 
 
 "Dry" Elkhart decreased. "Wet" Floyd increased 
 
 "Dry" Fountain decreased, "Wet" Franklin increased 
 
 "Dry" Jefferson decreased, "Wet" Lake increased. 
 
 "Dry" Jackson decreased, "Wet" Laporte increased. 
 
 "Dry" Huntington decreased. "Wet" Porter ''ncreased. 
 
 "Dry" Gibson decreased. "Wet'' Posey increased. 
 
 "Dry" Wabash decreased, "Wet" Spencei increased. 
 
 "Dry" Hamilton decreased. "Wet" Tippecanoe increased. 
 
 The three counties having the lowest tax rate in the state are "dry" counties. 
 
 Berton. Tr).6';c on the $100. 
 
 Hamilton, 25.65c on the $100 
 
 Marshall. 25.65c on' the $100. 
 
 The three counties having the highest tax rate in the state are: 
 
 "Dry" Switzerland, 95.65c on the $100. 
 
 "WVt" Crawford, 90.65c on the $too. 
 
 "Wet" Perry, 86.65c on the $100. 
 
 TOWNSHIP TAX RATE COMPARISONS. 
 
 There were in the state last year i,ot6 townships. Of these, 255 are in the 
 twenty-two "wet" counties of the state; 761 are in the seventy "dry" counties 
 
 Of the 255 townships in "wet" counties, 206, or 80.78 per cent of them, in- 
 creased their total tax levy laid in 1909. to be paid in 1910. 
 
 Of the 761 townships in the "dry" counties only 573, or 75.43 per cent, in- 
 creased their total tax levy. 
 
 A difference of 5.35 per cent in favor of the townships in "dry" counties. 
 
 Of the 255 townships in "wet" counties, thirty-three, or 12.94 per cent of 
 them, decreased their total tax levy laid in 1909, to be paid in 1910. 
 
 Of the 761 townships in "dry" counties, 154, or 20.24 per cent of them, de- 
 creased their total tax levy. 
 
 A difference of 7.30 per cent in favor of the townships in "dry" counties. 
 
 This favorable comparison in behalf of the townships in "dry" counties 
 holds good even in the tax levies laid for tuition purposes, — the one rate of ail 
 the others the saloon and brewery advocates were most certain would have to be 
 raised in every "dry" county. 
 
12 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 Of the 255 townships in "wet" counties, 104, or 40.78 per cent of them, in- 
 creased the levy laid for tuition purposes in 1909, to be paid in 1910. 
 
 Of the 761 townships in "dry" counties only 309, or 40.47 per cent of them, 
 increased their tuition levy. 
 
 A difference of .31 per cent in favor of the townships in "dry" counties; a 
 slight difference, but quite sufficient to coufound and cover with confusion the 
 prophecies of "wet" advocates. 
 
 Of the 255 townships in "wet" counties only forty-two, or 16.47 per cent of 
 them, decreased the tax levy for tuition p«rposes laid in 1909, to be paid in 1910. 
 
 Of the 761 townships in "dry" counties, 147, or 19.31 per cent of them, de- 
 creased their tuition levy. 
 
 A difference in favor of the townships in "dry" counties of 2.84 per cent. 
 
 In "dry" Jefferson one out of ten townships increased the tuition levy, and 
 one township decreased the levy. 
 
 In "wet" Floyd three out of four townships increased the tuition levy, and 
 none decreased it. 
 
 In "dry" Madison, a county in which 107 saloons were closed, only four out 
 of fourteen townships increased the tuition levy, and one decreased it. 
 
 In "wet" Allen nine out of twenty townships increased the tuition levy, and 
 one decreased it. 
 
 In "dry" Greene seven out of fifteen townships increased the tuition levy, 
 and three decreased it. 
 
 In "wet" Knox eight out of ten townships increased the tuition levy, and 
 none decreased it. 
 
 In "dry" Gibson four out of ten townships increased the tuition levy, and 
 three decreased it. 
 
 In "wet" Posey five out of ten townships increased the tuition levy, and 
 none decreased it. 
 
 In "dry" Crawford no township increased the tuition levy, and one de- 
 creased it. 
 
 In "wet" Vanderburg five out of seven townships increased the tuition levy, 
 and none decreased it. 
 
 In "dry" Wabash two out of seven townships increased the tuition levy, and 
 one decreased it. 
 
 In "wet" Wayne eight out of fifteen townships increased the tuition levy, 
 and three decreased it. 
 
 In "dry" Shelby five out of fourteen townships increased the tuition levy, 
 and four decreased it. 
 
 In "wet" Marion six out of eight townships increased the tuition levy, and 
 none decreased it. 
 
 CITY TAX RATE COMPARISONS. 
 
 Turning to the cities of the state, the facts are equally conclusive against 
 the contention that the elimination of the saloon from cities means an inevitable 
 raise in the tax levy. 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 13 
 
 I submit a comparison as to the levy in 117 towns and cities of the state: 
 Thirty-one "wet" towns and cities: 
 
 Aurora 
 
 Brookville 
 
 Batesville 
 
 Crown Point 
 
 Chesterton 
 
 Cannelton 
 
 East Chicago 
 EvansviMe 
 Fort Wayne 
 Gary 
 
 Hartford City 
 Huntingburg 
 
 Hammond 
 
 Indianapolis 
 
 JeflFersonville 
 
 Lawrenceburg 
 
 Laporte 
 
 Lafayette 
 
 Logansport 
 Michigan City 
 Mt. Vernon 
 Mishawaka 
 Montpelier 
 New Albany 
 
 Rockport 
 Richmond 
 South Bend 
 Tell City 
 Terre Haute 
 Valparaiso 
 Whiting 
 
 Eighty-six 
 Attica 
 Anderson 
 Auburn 
 Albion 
 Alexandria 
 Boswell 
 Brazil 
 
 Brownstown 
 Bloomington 
 Bloomfield 
 Boonville 
 Bedford 
 Bluffton 
 Columbus 
 Corydon 
 Connersville 
 Covington 
 
 "dry" towns and cities: 
 Crawfordsville Huntington 
 
 North Judson Salem 
 
 Clinton Kokomo New Castle Shoals 
 
 Columbia City Knox Newport Spencer 
 
 Decatur Kendalville Noblesville Seottsburg 
 
 Delphi Kentland Portland Shelbyville v 
 
 Danville Knightstown Petersburg Sullivan 
 
 English Lagrange Princeton Seymour 
 
 Elkhart Ligonier Paoli Sheridan 
 
 Elwood Linton Peru Tipton 
 
 Fowler Lebanon Plymouth Union City 
 
 Frankfort Liberty Pendleton Vevay 
 
 Fairmount Martinsville Plainfield Veedersbnrg 
 
 Greensburg Muncie Rensselaer Warsav/ 
 
 Goshen Mitchell Rockville Winchester 
 
 Gas City Marion Rushville Williamsport 
 
 Greenfield Monticello Rochester Winamac 
 
 Greeneastle Nashville Rising Sun Wabash 
 
 Washington 
 If we include the township levy made by the townships in which these cities 
 are situated, of the thirty-one "wet" cities, twenty-one. 
 
 Aurora 
 Brookville 
 Batesville 
 Crown Point 
 
 East Chicago 
 Fort Wayne 
 Gary 
 Hartford Citv 
 
 Indianapolis 
 Jeffersonville 
 Lawrenceburg 
 Michigan City 
 
 Mt. Vernon 
 Mishawaka 
 Rockport 
 Richmond 
 
 or 67.74 per cent of them, increased their total tax levy: 
 Of the eighty-six "dry" cities, fifty-two. 
 
 Auburn 
 
 Albion 
 
 Alexandria 
 
 Bloomfield 
 
 Boonville 
 
 Bedford 
 
 Bluffton 
 
 Clinton 
 
 Connersville 
 
 Covington 
 
 Crawfordsville 
 
 Danville 
 
 Elkhart 
 
 Elwood 
 
 Fowler 
 
 Frankfort 
 
 Fairmount 
 
 Greensburg 
 
 Goshen 
 
 Gas City 
 
 Greeneastle 
 
 Greenfield 
 
 Huntington 
 
 Kentland 
 
 Kendalville 
 
 Knox 
 
 Knightstown 
 
 Liberty 
 
 Linton 
 
 Muncie 
 
 Monticello 
 
 Mitchell 
 
 South Bend 
 Terre Haute 
 fell City 
 Valparaiso 
 Whiting. 
 
 North Juflson 
 
 Noblesville 
 
 Newport 
 
 Pendleton 
 
 Plymouth 
 
 Peru 
 
 Princeton 
 
 Paoli 
 
14 
 
 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 Rockville Rensselaer Seymour Veedersburg Wabash Winamac, 
 
 Rising Sun Sheridan Tipton Washington Williamsport Rochester 
 
 or 60.46 per cent, increased their tax levy: 
 
 A difference in favor of the "dry" cities of 7.28 per cent. 
 
 Of the thirty-one "wet" cities, seven, 
 Chesterton Hammond Logansport Montpelier, 
 
 Huntingburg Laporte Lafayette 
 
 or 22.58 per cent, decreased their total tax rate. 
 
 Of tke eighty-six "dry" cities, thirty-two, 
 
 Attica 
 
 Anderson 
 
 Btfswell 
 
 Brazil 
 
 Brownstown 
 
 Bloomington 
 
 Columbus 
 
 Corydon 
 
 Decatur 
 
 Delphi 
 
 English 
 
 Kokomo 
 
 Lebanon 
 
 Lagrange 
 
 Ligonier 
 
 Martinsville 
 
 Marion 
 
 New Castle 
 
 Plainfield 
 
 Petersburg 
 
 Portland 
 
 Rnshville 
 
 Spencer 
 
 Salem 
 
 Shclbyville 
 
 Sullivan 
 
 Scottsburg 
 
 Shoals 
 
 Union City 
 
 Vevay 
 
 Winchester 
 
 Warsaw, 
 
 or 37.21 per cent, decreased their total tax levy: 
 
 A difference in favor of the "dry" cities of 14.63 per cen^ 
 
 But of these "wet" cities increasing their total tax rate the increase was 
 
 due to an increased township levy for gravel road or poor purposes, which i 
 
 included in the above figures, in the following cities: 
 
 Crown Point Hartford City Lawrenceburg 
 
 Fort Wayne Indianapolis Valparaiso. 
 
 six in all, leaving of the twenty-one "wet" cities which increased their levy, 
 
 fifteen in which the increase was due wholly to the city levy. 
 
 On the other hand, of the seven "wet" cities decreasing their levy, the re 
 duction was due to a decrease in the township levy for gravel road purposes, in 
 one city, Chesterton, leaving six of the seven "wet" cities reducing the tax levy, 
 where the reduction was due to a decrease in the total city levy. To these six 
 should be added the six cities just named, making twelve "wet" cities in all, 
 which actually reduced their tax rate. 
 
 To the fifteen "wet" cities heretofore named, increasing the city rate ex- 
 clusive of the township rate, should bemadded Chesterton, whose city rate, exclud- 
 ing the township levy for gravel road purposes, was actually increased, making .1 
 total of sixteen "wet" cities out of thirty-one, whose total city levy was increased. 
 
 Of the fifty-two "dry" cities increasing their tax levy, the increase was due 
 to an increase in the township levy for gravel road and poor purposes in which 
 they are situated, in thirteen cities. 
 
 Alexandria 
 
 Bluffton 
 
 Covington 
 
 leaving only thirty-nine "dry' 
 increased. 
 
 Danville Monticello Sullivan 
 
 Grecncastle Newport Tipton 
 
 Kentland Seymour Veedersburg 
 
 Wabash, 
 cities in which the total city levy was actnallv 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 15 
 
 These, therefore, should be deducted from the "dry" cities increatsing their 
 city levy, leaving only thirty-nine in all. 
 
 Of the thirty-two "dry" cities heretofore named as reducing their tax rate, 
 the decrease in none of them was due to a decreased township levy. 
 
 Finally therefore, of the thirty-one "wet" cities, sixteen, or 51.61 per cent 
 of them, have increased their total levy. 
 
 Of the eighty-six "dry" cities only thirty-nine, or 45.35 per cent of them, 
 have increased their total levy. 
 
 A difference in favor of the "dry" cities of 6.26 per cent. 
 
 Of the thirty-one "wet" cities, twelve, or 38.71 per cent, decreased their 
 total levy. 
 
 Of the eighty-six "dry" cities, forty-five, or 52.32 per cent, decreased their 
 total levy. 
 
 A difference in favor of the "dry" cities of 13.61 per cent. 
 
 In a number of "dry" cities the increase, while not wholly due to a» in- 
 crease in the township levy, was substantially due to that cause, as in the city of 
 Muncie, where the total increase was 58c, and v/here the increase in the township 
 levy for gravel road purposes was 45c. This also applies in substantial measure 
 to the cities of Huntington, Portland Elwood, Pendleton and Sheridan. 
 
 TOWN TAX RATE COMPARISONS. 
 
 Out of forty-four "wet" towns, eleven, or 25 per cent, reduced their total 
 tax levy. 
 
 Out of 342 "dry" towns, 112, or nearly 33 per cent, reduced their total tax 
 levy. 
 
 A difference in favor of the "dry" towns of nearly 7 per cent. 
 
 Out of forty-four "wet" towns, eight, or a little over 18 per cent, increased 
 their total tax levy. 
 
 Out of 342 "dry" towns, only forty-seven, or a little less than 13 per cent, 
 increased their tax levy. 
 
 A difference in favor of the "dry" towns of almost 5 per cent. 
 
 I do not claim that these reductions in the tax levies in "dry" counties and 
 "dry" cities and the favorable comparison made between such reductions and 
 reductions made in "wet" counties and "wet" cities, are due wholly to the elimina- 
 tion of the saloon. 
 
 But I do claim that they utterly and conclusively overthrow the contention 
 of the saloon and brewery advocates that the elimination of the saloon means in- 
 creased tax rates in either counties, townships or cities. 
 
 The period of trial has been brief, but the fact of experience in the time 
 that has elapsed puts every "wet" prophecy to confusion and vindicates the judg- 
 ment and wisdom of those who obtained the county local option law and 
 abundantly justifies the law from every economic standpoint. 
 
 Another "wet" prophecy has been refuted by the facts of experience. Last 
 year we were assurred by every "wet" advocate that wherever a county voted 
 "dry" and the saloons were eliminated, drunkenness and debauchery would in- 
 
i6 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 crease; that conditions succeeding the voting of the county "dry" would be 
 worse than under the old "wet" regime. 
 
 And some good men believed them, and, through fear of bad conditions that 
 might obtain if the county became "dry," voted "wet." 
 
 We are now closing the first year under "dry" conditions in seventy coun- 
 ties, and I am in possession of statistics gh^ing the number of persons jailed for 
 intoxication in the several counties of the state, and the cost of their imprison- 
 ment in the way of sheriffs' in-and-out fees and for board, for the first eight 
 months, ending May 31, 1910, of the present fiscal year, which began October i, 
 1909, and which will end September 30, 1910. 
 
 These statistics are compiled from official reports made to the state board of 
 charities by the several county authorities. From these I subwiit comparisons 
 between the "dry" and "wet" counties, as to such imprisonments, and as to the 
 cost to such counties on account of such imprisonments. 
 
 There were imprisoned for intoxication in the twenty-two "wet" counties in 
 the eight months named, 5,569 persons, as against 4,541 persons for the like 
 period in the fiscal year 1909; an increase of 1,028, more than 18 per cent. 
 
 That is to say, that while 100 persons were jailed for intoxication in these 
 twenty-two "wet" counties the first eight months of the fiscal year beginning 
 October i, 1908, 118 were jailed the first eight months of the present fiscal year. 
 
 In the seventy "dry" counties there were jailed for intoxication in eight 
 months ending May 31, 1910, only 2,865 persons, as against 4,010 for the like 
 period in the last fiscal year, a decrease of 1,145, — more than 28 per cent. 
 
 Or, where, in these seventy "dry" counties, 100 persons were jailed for in- 
 toxication in the first eight months of the last fiscal year, only seventy-two were 
 jailed in the first eight months of this fiscal year. 
 
 Or, twenty-two "wet" counties with an aggregate population of 929,059, 
 under the census of 1900(1 use the census report for 1900 because I am unable as 
 yet to get the report from the census taken this year), for the eight months end- 
 ing May 31, 1910, jailed 5,569 persons for intoxication. 
 
 The seventy "dry" counties, with an aggregate population of 1,587,403, 
 jailed but 2,865. 
 
 A difference of 2,704 in favor of the "dry" counties, thoufeh their population 
 is 658,344 greater than that of the twenty-two "wet" counties. 
 
 Or, in these seventy "dry" counties but little over one-half as many persons 
 were jailed for intoxication within the first eight months of the present fiscal 
 year, as were jailed in the twenty-two "wet" counties, though the population of 
 the seventy "dry" counties is more than one and a half times greater than that of 
 the twenty-two "wet" counties. 
 
 Or, where the twenty-two "wet" counties increased the number of persons 
 jailed for intoxication 18 per cent, the seventy "dry" counties decreased the 
 number of persons jailed for intoxication by 28 per cent, a difference in favor of 
 the "dry" counties of 46 per cent. 
 
 It may be urged that the twenty-two "wet" counties contain the large cities 
 of the state, where the population is dense and congested, and where conditions 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 17 
 
 of idleness and poverty are such as to raise intoxication to the maximum, while 
 the seventy "dry" counties are largely rural, with sparse population and wide 
 separation of habitation, and where the conditions make for the minimum of 
 iMtoxication. 
 
 But whatever the importance of these conditions may be, they wholly fail 
 to account for the difference in the number of persons jailed for intoxication 
 found between the "dry" and "wet" counties of the state. The comparison of in- 
 crease is made not only between "dry" and "wet" counties, but between "wet" 
 counties and the same "wet" counties for the same period of the two fiscal years, 
 and between "dry" counties and the same "dry" counties for like periods. The 
 "wet" counties, compared with themselves, have increased 18 per cent, while the 
 "dry" counties, compared with themselves, have decreased 28 per cent. 
 
 Or, to put it another way: Of the twenty-two "wet" counties the number 
 jailed for the first eight months of the present fiscal year, fifteen, or 70 per cent 
 of them, increased the number of persons jailed for intoxication, over the same 
 period for the last fiscal year. 
 
 While of the seventy "dry" counties only sixteen, or 23 per cent of them, 
 increased the number of persons jailed for intoxication, over the same period for 
 the last fiscal year. 
 
 A difference of 47 per cent in favor of the "dry" counties. 
 
 Of the twenty-two "wet" counties, only seven, or 30 per cent of them, de- 
 creased the number of persons jailed for intoxication during said period, as com- 
 pared with the same period last year. 
 
 Of the seventy "dry" counties, forty-seven, or 67 per cent of them, decreased 
 the number of persons jailed for intoxication. 
 
 A difference in favor of the "dry" counties of 37 per cent. 
 To illustrate: 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Clay 
 
 decreased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 41 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 Cass 
 
 increased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 178 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Bartholomew 
 
 decreased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 2 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 Blackford 
 
 increased 
 
 the 
 
 number 367 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Adams 
 
 decreased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 50 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 Porter 
 
 increased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 3 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Fountain 
 
 decreased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 68 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 Tippecanoe 
 
 increased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 67 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Huntington 
 
 decreased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 67 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 Knox 
 
 increased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 23 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Madison 
 
 decreased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 31 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 St. Joseph 
 
 increased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 41 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Delaware 
 
 decreased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 56 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 Vanderburg 
 
 increased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 52 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Hancock 
 
 decreased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 53 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 Wayne 
 
 increased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 22 
 
 per cent. 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Martin 
 
 decreased 
 
 the 
 
 number 
 
 61 
 
 per cent. 
 
iS 
 
 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 Posey 
 
 increased the number 
 
 17 per cent. 
 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Elkhart 
 
 decreased the number 
 
 45 per cent. 
 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 Allen 
 
 increased the number 
 
 48 per cent. 
 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Grant 
 
 decreased the number 
 
 43 per cent. 
 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 Lake 
 
 increased the number 
 
 62 per cent. 
 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Shelby 
 
 decreased the number 
 
 65 per cent. 
 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 Laporte 
 
 increased the number 
 
 12 per cent. 
 
 
 "Dry" 
 
 Vermilion 
 
 decreased the number 
 
 50 per cent. 
 
 
 "Wet" 
 
 Clark 
 
 increased the number 
 
 20 per cent. 
 
 
 In "wet" Knox county alone 650 persons were jailed for in 
 
 toxication in the 
 
 first eight months of the present fiscal year, while 
 
 in forty-four 
 
 "dry" counties, 
 
 Adams 
 
 Harrison 
 
 Jennings 
 
 Parke 
 
 Union 
 
 Brown 
 
 Hendricks Jefferson 
 
 Pike 
 
 Vermilion 
 
 Benton 
 
 Hancock 
 
 Lagrange 
 
 Randolph 
 
 Whitley 
 
 Clinton 
 
 Huntington Martin 
 
 Rush 
 
 White 
 
 Clay 
 
 Hamilton 
 
 Marshall 
 
 Scott 
 
 Warren 
 
 Crawford 
 
 Jasper 
 
 Newton 
 
 Starke 
 
 Warrick 
 
 Dekalb 
 
 Jay 
 
 Noble 
 
 Switzerland 
 
 Wells 
 
 Fountain 
 
 Johnson 
 
 Owen 
 
 Steuben 
 
 Washington, 
 
 Gibson 
 
 Jackson 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Tipton 
 
 
 only 615 pel 
 
 sons were jail 
 
 ed for intoxication an excess in "wet" 
 
 Knox of thirty- 
 
 five over the number jailed in forty-four "dry" counties. 
 
 Difference in population here cannot account for the difference in these 
 figures, since, of the forty-four "dry" counties named, one. Clay, has a population 
 greater than that of Knox, and a number, Clinton, Gibson, Huntington, Hamil- 
 ton, Randolph and others, have each almost as large a population as Knox. The 
 population of Knox county is 32,746, and of the forty-four "dry" counties, 
 847,132. 
 
 In the eleven "dry" counties of Clinton, Clay, Daviess, Elkhart, Gibson, 
 Huntington, Hamilton, Howard, Kosciusko, Montgomery and Randolph, with a 
 population of 342,092, and two of which. Clay and Elkhart, each have a population 
 greater than that of Knox, only 495 persons were jailed in the period named, for 
 intoxication, as against 650 in "wet" Knox, with a population of 32,746. 
 
 Or, Knox county, with only 10 per cent of the population of these eleven 
 "dry" counties, jailed in the first eight months of the present fiscal year, for 
 intoxication, 155 more persons than were jailed in the eleven counties named. 
 
 The "dry" counties of Elkhart, with a population of 45,052; Delaware, with 
 a population of 49,624; Madison, with a population of 70,470; a total population 
 of 165,046, jailed but 400 persons for intoxication during the period named, but 
 "wet" Knox, with a population of only 32,746, jailed 650 persons, 250 more per- 
 sons than these three "dry" counties. 
 
 Or, Knox county, with less than 20 per cent of the population, jailed more 
 than 50 per cent more persons than the three larger populated counties of Elk- 
 hart, Delaware and Madison. 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 19 
 
 "Wet" Vigo county, with a population of only 62,035, jailed in the first 
 eight months of this fiscal year, 889 persons for intoxication. 
 
 The forty-four "dry" counties named above, with the counties of Carroll, 
 Decatur, Greene, Howard, Putnam and Shelby added, fifty in all, with a popula- 
 tion of 991,677, jailed only 990 persons for intoxication in the time, only one more 
 than "wet" Vigo county. 
 
 The five "wet" counties of Allen, Knox, St. Joseph, Vanderburg and Vigo, 
 with a population of 302,691, jailed for intoxication 1,591 more persons than the 
 forty-four "dry" counties, named above, with Elkhart, Grant and Madison added, 
 forty-seven in all, with an aggregate population of 1,021,918. 
 
 Or, the five "wet" counties named, with less than 30 per cent of the popula- 
 tion of the forty-seven "dry" counties namec!, jailed 137 per cent more persons. 
 
 The four "wet" counties of St. Joseph, Vanderburg, Vigo and Knox, with a 
 population of 225,421, jailed 2,354 persons for intoxication. 
 
 The four "dry" counties of Elkhart, Delaware. Madison and Grant, with a 
 population of 219,739 jailed only 603 persons for intoxication; a diflFerence of i,75i- 
 
 Or, the four "wet" counties named, with a population of only 5,682 in 
 excess of that of the four "dry" counties named, jailed more than 270 per cent 
 more persons, almost four to one. 
 
 The five "wet" counties of Allen. Knox, St. Joseph. Vanderburg and Vigo, 
 with a population of 302.691, jailed 2,749 persons, only 116 fewer than the entire 
 seventy "dr)'-" counties, with a population of 1,587,403. 
 
 Or, the seventy "dry" counties, with more than five times the population of 
 Allen, Knox, St. Joseph, Vanderburj^ and Vigo, jailed for this oflFense only ti6 
 more persons. 
 
 COST OF IMPRISONMENTS FOR INTOXICATION. 
 
 The difference in the cost of sheriflFs* in-and-out fees and the board on 
 account of persons jailed, is equally confusing to saloon and brewery advocates. 
 
 In the first eight months of this fiscal year, sheriffs' in-and-out fees on 
 account of persons jailed for intoxication, aggregated in the state $3,186.50; in 
 the twenty-two "wet" counties, $1,774.65; in the seventy "dry" counties, $1,411.90: 
 an excess in the twenty-two "wet" counties over the seventy "dry" counties of 
 $362.75. 
 
 The board for persons jailed on account of intoxication in the entire state 
 during the period named aggregated $23,197.78. 
 
 The board for persons jailed in the twenty-two "wet" counties aggregated 
 $14,849.68. 
 
 The board for persons jailed in the seventy "dry" counties aggregated 
 $8,348.10. 
 
 Excess in twenty-two "wet" counties over the seventy "dry" counties, 
 $6,501.58. 
 
 Fees and board for persons jailed on account of intoxication in the entire 
 state for the period named, aggregated $26,384.33. 
 
 Fees and board in the twenty-two "wet" counties. $16,624.33. 
 
20 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 Fees and board in the seventy "dry" counties, $9,760.00. 
 
 A difference in favor of the seventy "dry" counties of $6,864.33. 
 
 And this, notwithstanding the fact that the seventy "dry" counties have an 
 aggregate population of 1,587,403, as against a population of only 927,059 in the 
 "wet" counties. 
 
 "Wet" Vigo county, with a population of but 62,035, paid out for board 
 alone, on account of persons jailed for intoxication, $2,001.60, only $46.93 less 
 money than the fourteen counties of 
 
 Clinton Elkhart Howard Kosciusko Randolph 
 
 Clay Greene Huntington Montgomery Wabash, 
 
 Daviess Gibson Hamilton Madison 
 
 paid out on account of both in-and-out fees and board, with a population of 
 469,327 — 7J^ times greater. 
 
 Or, Vigo alone, with a population of 62,035, paid out for board alone $2,001,60, or 
 $354.02 more than the forty "dry" counties heretofore named, with a population of 
 733.079, paid out for both in-and-out fees and board, and only $20.48 less than these 
 forty counries paid out with Clinton, Jefferson, Randolph and Clay added, forty-four in 
 all, with a population of 847,132, more than twelve times greater. 
 
 The "wet" counties of St. Joseph, Vanderburg, Knox and Allen, with a population 
 of 302,691, paid out an account of fees and board, $8,329.87. The fourty-four "dry" 
 counties heretofore named, with Grant and Madison added, with an aggregate popula- 
 tion of 1,021,919, paid out $3,960, on account of board and fees, a difference in favor 
 of the fourty-four "dry" counties, of $4,369.39. 
 
 Or, "wet" St. Joseph, Vanderburg, Vigo, Knox and Allen, with less than 30 per 
 cent of the population of the forty-seven counties named above, paid out no per cent 
 more fees and board. 
 
 "Wet" Knox county, with a population of but 32,946, paid out for fees and board, 
 $1,538. 70. 
 
 The eleven "dry" counties of: 
 Clinton Elkhart Hamilton Montgomery 
 
 Clay Gibson Howard Randolph 
 
 Daviess Huntington Kosciusko 
 
 with a population of 342,092, paid out $1,454.63, a difference of $84.07 in favor of the 
 eleven "dry" counties. 
 
 Or, "wet" Knox county, with only 10 per cent of the population of these eleven 
 "dry" counties, paid out $84.07 more money. 
 
 Of these eleven counties, two. Clay and Elkhart, exceed Knox county in popu- 
 lation, and none of the others are substantially less than Knox in population. 
 
 The "dry" counties of Elkhart, with a population of 45,052; Delaware, with a 
 ropulation of 49,624; Madison, with a population of 70,470; a total population of 165,- 
 046, paid out $183.30 less on account of in-and-out fees and board, thian Knox county, 
 with a population of 32,746. 
 
 Or, Knox county, with less than 20 per cent of the population of the three "dry" 
 counties named, paid out $183.20 mere in the way of sheriffs* fees and board. 
 
 "Dry" Delaware county, with a population of 49,624; "dry" Grant, with a popu- 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN mDIANA 21 
 
 lation of 54,693; a total population of 104^17, paid out, on account of fees and board, 
 $1461.20. "Wet" Knox countj% with only 32,746 population, paid -out $1,538.70, or 
 $77.51 more. 
 
 "Dry" Delaware county, with a population of 49,624; "dry" Madison, with a 
 population of 70,470; a total population of 120,094, paid out on account of fees and 
 board, $1,229.20. "Wet" Knox county, with a population of 32,746, paid out on account 
 of fees and board, $1,538.70, or $309.50 more than "dry" Delaware and Madison. 
 
 "Dry" Grant, with a population of 54,693; ''dry" Madison, with a population of 
 70,470; a total population of 125,163, paid out on account of fees and board, $1,186.40. 
 "Wet" Knox county, with a population of 32,746, paid out on account of fees and 
 board, $1,538.70, or $352.30 more than "dry" Grant and Madison. 
 
 There have been, of course, and still are infractions of the law in some of the 
 "dry" cities of the state, perhaps in all of them, but they are as nothing compared with 
 previous infractions of the license law in the same cities, or with present infractions 
 of the license law in the "wet" cities of the state. 
 
 There were more infractions of the license law in the single city of Indianapolis 
 on last Labor Day than there have been infractions of the local option law in the 
 eighty-six "dry" cities of the state during the whole year. On that day 700 saloons 
 ran open in Indianapolis from dawn until 11 o'clock at night, without interruption or 
 hinderance, thoungh the law forbade their opening at all. Every drink sold in the 
 eighteen hours of that day by anyone of the 700 saloons of that city, was a violation 
 of the law. There were on the streets of the city probably 75,000 people. The traffic 
 must have been large. The mayor of the cit3' said to me personally within the week 
 that it w^as utterly impossible to close the saloons and prevent infractions of the license 
 law in Indianapolis on that day. 
 
 And this is the traffic that demands the repeal of the local option law, on the 
 ground that it cannot be enforced and because its violation is so frequent as to bring 
 the law into disrepute! If that contention is sound, and a frequent violation of a 
 statute just reason for its repeal, thien by the same token the license law should be 
 repealed, all restrictions be removed, and the traffic made free, for, where the local 
 option law is violated once in the seventy "drv" counties of the state, the license law 
 is violated a hundred times in the twenty-two "wet" counties of the state. 
 
 I do not contend that the local option law is never violated. I know it is. But 
 I know of no law, human or divine, with a "thou shalt not" in it that is not sometimes 
 violated. There is not a clause in the Decalogue that is not violated every day by 
 some one, some where. But because of that thoughtful men do not petition the Throne 
 of Grace for a repeal of the Ten Commandments and the removal of all restraint from 
 human kind. 
 
 I know some intoxicants are sold in the "dry" cities of the state, but the "wettest" 
 "dry" city in Indiana is infinitely "drier" than the "driest" "wet" city. The difference 
 in the quantity used in the "dry" tnd "wet" cities is the difference between the freight 
 car and the suit-case, between the bottle and the barrel. 
 
 I know that local option does not perfectly prohibit the traffic, but it comes quite 
 as near prohibiting it as the license law comes to regulating it Roth laws are broken, 
 and broken by the same people. 
 
22 COUNTY OPTION TN INDIANA 
 
 Bad as the* conditions are in the twenty-two "wet" counties of the state, the 
 actual conditions are worse. The figures do ti-t tell the whole truth. In "wet" cities 
 men are arrested and jailed for intoxication oniy when noisy and troublesome and as 
 a last resort. They are concealed and housed in saloons and in back rooms. In some 
 of the "wet" cities other than county seat cities no record is kept of many of those who 
 are jailc* for intoxication, every effort being made to minimize the facts as to drunk- 
 enness, while in "dry" cities every drunken man is paraded and the fact of his intox- 
 ication made much of. There are no saloons in which he can be housed and sheltered. 
 The law against drunkenness on the streets is much more strictly enforced. There- 
 fore, the contrast between the "wet" and the "dry" counties as to the number of per- 
 sons jailed for intoxication, the amount of drunkenness and the expense of imprison- 
 ments for intoxication is really greater than that sliown by these figures. 
 
 REPEAL PROPOFF.D. 
 
 They now proposed to repeal this beneficent law — ^to repeal it before it is fairly 
 tried, before it has had time to fully justify its being. Alarmed by the use the people 
 have made of it, by its effectiveness and by the remarkable showing that has been 
 made under it, they dare not let it live until its fruit is ripened and its harvest gath- 
 ered. They seek, therefore, to kill it in its infancy, before it grows to manhood. 
 
 Too cowardly to attack the principle on which it rests, afraid to advocate your 
 complete disfranchisement, they seek to circumscribe and limit your franchise by de- 
 creasing the area of the unit in which it may be exercised. Instead of county option, 
 they offer you township and city option. Two years ago they opposed the principle in 
 any form. They were against option by ballot in any unit and were in favor of the 
 township and ward remonstrance law. But two years before that, when the township 
 and ward remonstrance law was pending in the general assembly and hanging in the 
 balance for need of friends, they were opposed to remonstrance against the traffic in 
 any form, and desired that you be confined to' remonstrance against the individual 
 applicant. If we are to judge them by their past conduct it is not the unit to which 
 they are opposed. Contention that it is, is but a pretense and subterfuge. It is the 
 principle of option by ballot in any form which they fight. They have not changed. 
 Grant them what they now ask and the next step will be the repeal of option by ballot, 
 entirely, and your complete disfranchisement. They present only the nose of the 
 camel, but the body of the benst is back of the nose, and behind its body are the brew- 
 eries of six states — Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky. Missouri, Illinois and Wisconsin. 
 
 They talk about substituting the township and the city as separate units for the 
 njunty unit only because they fear you would repudiate a proposition to disfranchise 
 you entirely. Their appeal for the township and city units on account of their fairness 
 is specious and unfounded. The question of license or no-license is not and cannot be 
 a township or city question to the exclusion of the rest of the people of the counts' 
 in which such city or township is situated. Under our system of county government 
 it is of necessity a county question, affecting all the people of the county, whether they 
 reside in the city or in the country. If it is right on principle that a majority of the 
 people of a township or a city should rule, it is right that a majority of the people of 
 ^ county should rule If i.«? impossible to distinguish th'' moral principle of the two. 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 23 
 
 tor it is the same in both — the right of the majority to administer government. 
 
 Until we revolutionize our entire system of county government, the county will 
 continue to be the logical and the just unit for the local regulation and control of this 
 trafl5c. 
 
 A *'wet" city means a "wet" county. This is especially true of a county seat city. 
 Lines of travel, — gravel roads, steam railways and interurban lines — connect with 
 every section of the county. All county business is transacted at the county seat 
 There the courts sit. There taxes are paid. There county institutes and all county 
 meetings of every character are held. 
 
 The question of license is made by the license law itself a county question, to be 
 decided by a county tribunal — the board of county commissioners, A county officer 
 approves the bond required of the applicant. 
 
 The question of the enforcement of the laws of the state in the county is a 
 county question, devolved upon the county sheriff. 
 
 The county is the smallest unit electing a prosecuting attorney or a judge of 
 the circuit court. 
 
 The location of the county seat and the construction of the court house and 
 jail is a county question to be decided by the people of the county. Their maintenance 
 is a county question, devolved upon and paid for by the people of the whole county. 
 
 The county infirmary for the poor and the dependent is a county question. Its 
 nxaintenance is devolved upon the taxpayers of the entire county. 
 
 The local support of the insane is- a county question and devolved upon the tax- 
 payers of the whole county. 
 
 The cost of juries, courts, and court officials, with the exception of the salaries 
 of the judge and the prosecuting attorney, is a county question, their maintenance be- 
 ing devolved upon the taxpayers of the whole county. 
 
 The cost of criminal trials is a county question, devolved upon the taxpayers of 
 the whole county. The maintenance of prisoners and the payment of sheriflfs* in-and- 
 out fees at the county jails is a county question, devolved upon the taxpayers of the 
 whole county. 
 
 In a state like ours, where population and wealth are largely rural, the taxpayers 
 outside the cities pay much more than one-half the taxes levied by the counties. Prop- 
 erty outside the cities in the seventy "dry" counties of the state bears 70 per cent of 
 all the taxes levied by such counties. The people residing outside of the cities of these 
 seventy counties own 70 per cent of the property assessed for taxation purposes, 
 while the people of the cities own but 30 per cent of the taxable property in such 
 counties and pay but 30 per cent of the taxes levied by such counties, and in many 
 instances much less. 
 
 In Noble county almost 80 per cent of the taxable property is in the country; 
 in Madison county, 56 per cent ; in Wabash county, jz per cent ; in Daviess county, 75 
 per cent; in Huntington county, 75 per cent; in Jackson county, 75 per cent; in Ohio 
 county, 75 per cent; in Shelby county, 75 per cent; in Decatur county, 80 per cent; in 
 Gibson county, 80 per cent; in Morgan county, 83 per cent; in Dekalb county, 84 per 
 cent; in Jeflferson county, 85 per cent; in Whitley county, 85 per cent; in Jasper 
 county, 90 per cent ; in Marshall county, 90 per cent ; in Warrick county, 93 per cent. 
 
24 
 
 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 Township and city option would exclude the owners of 70 to 80 per cent of the 
 taxable property in most of the counties of the state from all voice of participation in 
 the question of license or no-license, and devolve the determination exclusively upon 
 ihe persons owning but 20 or 30 per cent of the property of the county. This is not 
 governinent by majority, but government by minority. It is neither Democratic nor 
 Republican. Fair dealing excludes taxation without representation. 
 
 it is said the county unit is unfair to the liquor tratfic because it excludes it from 
 cities that desire the traffic, but no question of fairness or of unfairness to the liquor 
 traffic is involved. You can't be fair to an evil. An evil has no moral rights. You 
 QO not treat with an evil. You destroy it. If not able to destroy it wholly, and at 
 once, you seek its destruction step by step, crowding it here a little and there a little, 
 until you are finally able to exterminate it. Did you ever hear of treating the small- 
 pox fairly? Or of just treatment* of typhoid fever? Or of "square dealing" for 
 tuberculosis? These are evils to be destroyed and not treated with. Wc make war 
 upon them. We seek their elimination, and hope for their annihilation. 
 
 if a township or city in Indiana should decide that it wanted smallpox and should 
 vote to remove all restrictions during an epidemic of smallpox in sucli township or in 
 such city, the people of the county, indeed, the- state itself, would step in, for it would 
 be the concern of all. it would effect the public health, the public welfare. So, with 
 the liquor traffic. The question of fair treatment to it is not, and cannot be involved. 
 There is not a dollar invested in the business that has not been invested with tlie full 
 knowledge of the fact that the traffic exists' at sufferance; that it has no inherent 
 rights, which the people in their sovereign capacity are bound to respect. An evil to 
 the race, it is not entitled to terms or treaty, its only due is extermination. 
 FiGHTiNG FOR A GREAT STAKE. 
 
 The liquor interests are lighting for a great stake — the recovery of thirty-six 
 counties taken away from them by an enfranchised people, the counties of : 
 
 Bartholomew 
 
 Hendricks 
 
 Johnson 
 
 Monroe 
 
 Starke 
 
 Daviess 
 
 Howard 
 
 Lagrange 
 
 Mewton 
 
 Steuben 
 
 Decatur 
 
 Huntington 
 
 Madison 
 
 Noble 
 
 Vermillion 
 
 Dekalb 
 
 Jackson 
 
 Marshall 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Wabash 
 
 Elkhart 
 
 Jasper 
 
 Martin 
 
 Orange 
 
 Warrick 
 
 Gibson 
 
 Jefferson 
 
 Miami 
 
 Pulaski 
 
 White 
 
 Grant 
 
 Jennings 
 
 Morgan 
 
 Shelby 
 
 Whitley 
 
 Harrison 
 
 
 
 
 
 These counties contain the cities of: 
 
 
 
 Anderson 
 
 Columbia City 
 
 Goshen 
 
 Kendalville 
 
 Peru 
 
 Alexandria 
 
 Elkhart 
 
 Greensburg 
 
 Ligonier 
 
 Plymouth 
 
 Coumbus 
 
 Elwood 
 
 Huntington 
 
 Marion 
 
 Seymour 
 
 Clinton 
 
 Fairmount 
 Washington 
 
 Kokomo 
 
 Madison 
 Wabash 
 
 Shelbyvillc 
 
 Under township and city option all would become "wet." This statement is 
 based upon the fact that some township or city in each of these counties voted "wet" 
 in the late local option elections. To these should be added the county of Delaware 
 and the city of Muncie, as the "dry" margin in Muncie at the late local option election 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 25 
 
 v.as so narrow as to make its retention in the "dry" column extremely doubtful under 
 city option. 
 
 The stake for which the liquor interests fight, therefore, is these thirty-seven 
 counties, with their twenty-three cities, 14,500 square miles of territory, and a popu- 
 lation of more than 920,000 people, two-fifths of the area of the state and of its popu- 
 lation. In tnese thirty-seven counties there were 760 saloons when they voted "dry," 
 bringing to the traffic an aggregate annual income of more than $7,000,000. And this 
 IS the immediate stake for which they fight. 
 
 To this rich stake should be added isolated townships and. cities 
 here and there, which in all probability they could re-take under township and 
 
 city option. Then, the repeal of the county local 
 k^ V^vi I 1 I opt^o^ ^^w would give them the prestige of terri- 
 
 Wu Ni WrJ^ tory re-taken, of cities re-captured, of trade re- 
 
 TL^JI/ -1 covered, of saloons re-opened — the prestige of 
 
 *"^^ ^ ' ^ "^ *■" ^ victory won. Its repeal v/ould impair the morals 
 
 of the temperance forces throughout the state and 
 would bring discomfiture and defeat. It would 
 be of far-reaching influence, aflfecting the cause 
 of temperance and of good government every- 
 where. It would be a step backward 
 where we should go forward. It would 
 bring a lessened and a restricted fran- 
 chise to all, and complete and absolute disfran- 
 chisement in many counties. It would place the 
 power that justly lies in the majority of the peo- 
 ple of the county in the hands of a small minor- 
 ity of the people of the county in the hands of a 
 small minority. It would establish taxation with- 
 out representation as to the owners of 70 per 
 cent of the property in the counties re-taken. It 
 would blacken that which is now white, and trans- 
 form the state to its detriment and shame. Here 
 is the state as it now is : 
 The liquor interests are prepared to fight fiercely for the recovery of this terri- 
 tory, and the re-capture of these cities. Saloonkeeper and brewer both are desperate. 
 In the language of the Indiana Hotel Keepers' Association, they "are bieng badly 
 crowded" by the present law. It has somehow adversely affected their business. To 
 them the law is a "rank imposition." 
 
 They are effectively organized. They possess great wealth — ^wealth wrung from 
 the weak and hapless. They touch the financial interests of ma«y men. They are 
 unscrupulous in method ; persistent in effort, and powerful in influence. 
 
 They are even now selecting agents to handle and disburse a gigantic corruption 
 fund with which to debauch the electorate in the approaching election and later to 
 corrupt the general assembly. Men high in political councils have already been ap- 
 proached with offers of rich reward for service desired. They have silenced one of 
 
:36 
 
 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 Here is the territory that would be 
 re-taken : 
 
 And here is the state as it would 
 appear within a year after the law's 
 repeal : 
 
 the great political parties in its platform utterance, and have carried the other to ar 
 open declaration for the law's repeal. The silence of the one and the open declaration 
 of the other were brought about by brewery influence exerted upon the present party 
 managements. Neither the silence of the one nor the pledge of repeal by the other 
 represent aught else than the selfish desire of ambitious and self-seeking politicians to 
 win in this campaign. And the audacious malfeasance of the one is but little worse 
 than the pusilanimous nonfeasance of the other. If the declaration of the enemies of 
 the law for its repeal is bad, what shall we say of the conduct of its supposed friends 
 who run away and leave it to its fate undefended? Both conventions betrayed a great 
 cause, — the one by silence, and the other by open declaration of hostility. And neither 
 reflects, in the position taken, the views of the people it represents. The attitude as- 
 sumed was the attitude of the leaders and not of the rank and file. Thousands of 
 Democrats and a multitude of Republicans believe in the county local option law and 
 are against its repeal. 
 
 Much is being said these days by certain leaders against the administration of 
 government by special interests and about the rule of the people. The air is veritably 
 filled with talk for the rights of the people, and against government by special interests. 
 The welkin rings with cries for the initiative, the referendum, the recall and the direct 
 primary — cries that illy comport with the platform declaration of the one for the dis- 
 franchisement of the people, or with the silence of the other. If these men are sin- 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 27 
 
 cere in their protestations of love for the people, and for the principle that the people 
 should rule, why do the one set of them seek the people's disfranchisement on this 
 great question, and why do the other set of them stand dumb in the presence of the 
 tlireai to disfranchise you? 
 
 There is utter inconsistency in the attitude of a party that opposes government 
 by special interests with one hand while with the other it takes away from the people 
 their power to control and regulate the most wicked and powerful special interest in 
 the Republic. 
 
 And there is like inconsistency in the attitude of a party which, in one breath 
 cries out for the rule of the people, then passes over the question of their proposed 
 disfranchisement in silence, and in the next breath nominates a man to the supreme 
 bench who has already solemnly declared the enfranchisement of the people in this 
 behalf to be unconstitutional and invalid. 
 
 i am a Republican. 1 want to follow my party leadership. 1 want to vote its 
 ticket. There are thousands of other local option Republicans who want to follow 
 their party leadership and who want to vote its ticket. There are also thousands of 
 local option Democrats who want to follow their party leadership and to vote its ticket. 
 But the silence of the one on this question and the declaration of the other of its intent 
 to repeal this law brings to such men much perplexity and embarrassment. The atti- 
 tude of our respective parties compels us either to surrender a great conviction or to 
 decline to vote our party tickets until we have polled the candidates upon them and 
 ascertained their attitude. I am a Republican, but I will not surrender my conviction 
 on this question. It means too much to this people. 1 shall, therefore, vote for every 
 man on my party's ticket who favors the preservation of this law and who believes it 
 to be a constitutional and a valid enactment and who will work and exercise his in- 
 fluence for its retention ; but I will vote for no man for any legislative, executive, ad- 
 ministrative or judicial office who favors the repeal or impairment of the local option 
 law, or who believes it to be an unconstitutional or invalid enactment, nor will I ask 
 any other man to vote for any such candidate. If I find an opponent on any other 
 ticket who believes in the law and will support it, I will cross over and vote for him 
 regardless of his politics, and I will ask other men to cross over and vote for him. 
 And, my Democratic brother, my Prohibition friend, if you are opposed to the repeal 
 and the nullification of this law, you ought to do likewise as to "wet" candidates oh 
 do no otherwise. Neither will I vote for a man who will not declare himself on this 
 your tickets. In this way we can save it, and in this way only. Like Luther, I can 
 question. If he desires to represent me in any office, legislative, executive, adminis- 
 trative or judicial, and wants my vote, he must say what he proposes to do with the 
 power I delegate to him. My right to demand this and his duty to answer goes to the 
 very heart and center of the principle of representative government. It goes to the 
 heart and center of government by the people. Indeed, only in this way can there be 
 government by the people. The man who cries out in behalf of the principle of repre 
 sentative government and the rule of the people, but who refuses to tell the people, 
 whose suffrage he seeks, what he will do with the power they give him, has no right 
 to expect power at their hands. 
 
 I have been asked by some ardent, new-born souls if I am in favor of Cannon 
 
28 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 and Cannonism, and I have answered, "No, I have no sympathy with Cannon •r with 
 Cannonism. 1 was opposed to both when some people who are now making the most 
 noise about them were in full cry in the opposite direction. More than two years ag©, 
 as a member of the general conference of the Methodist Episcopal church, convened 
 in Baltimore, 1 had the privilege of moving a resolution for the appointment of a com- 
 mittee of remonstrance lo visit Speaker Cannon, and the honor of being appointed 
 chairman of that committee, and later of making a report of censure in behalf of the 
 committee, and the pleasure of seeing it unanimously adopted by that great boiy. 
 An action that did much to attract attention to him and to his methods. But Cannon is 
 on his last legs, and Cannonism, in Indiana at least, is dead, and 1 have no disposition 
 
 to continue to lire into the corpse. 
 
 > 
 
 "And if Cannonism is not already dead throughout the country, but should evi- 
 dence signs of returning vitality in Washington next year, either of the distinguished 
 men who are seeking election to the United States senate from this state, can be 
 trusted to do it to its death. Both are its avowed and sworn foes." 
 
 A livelier, more vital issue than Cannonism is involved in the repeal of this law 
 and in the proposed disfranchisement of our people on this question. 
 
 If it is the purpose of one ol these distinguished gentlemen to aid in its repeal 
 and of the other to stand by in silence while it is repealed, we are entitled to know it. 
 No apostle of representative government can afford to conceal his attitude upon any 
 question of public concern to the people he represents. 
 
 I have been told that the temperance question disturbs the party, that it tends 
 to disintegrate and destroy the party. I answer, "So did the slavery question disturb 
 parties. It disturbed them because they would not do right. It disturbed them for 
 tifty years. It disturbed them until one great party was actually disintegrated and a 
 new party born, with courage to strike slavery to its death. There was no peace while 
 slavery existed. There could not be peace with slavery." 
 
 History sometimes repeats itself. Today we are face to face with another great 
 moral qustion. And speaking in the light of the past history of the race, I say to 
 the managers of both parties ni this state, "You cannot found a party upon the saloon 
 and brewery and have it stand. A party so founded cannot abide the white light of 
 this new century. Nor will it avail you to cry for peace upon this question any more 
 than it availed your fathers to cry for peace upon the slavery question. The great 
 battle of God Almighty is not fought out and you will have more of it. There will be 
 no pe.re until you do right. If you want peace, do right and you shall have peace. 
 But uni.'l you come up to the grounds of moral truth and moral principle, and stand 
 on them, tliere will be dissention and revolution in both parties. You may invent party 
 cries to leail men astray, but they will return to this question until it is settled and 
 settled right. 
 
 "You may despite this cau.-,c. \ ou may cruicfy it and cast it out utterly from con- 
 ventions, but you cannot destroy it. it will come up again. You may kill its defenders, 
 you may silence its advocates, you may congratulate yourselves that you are well rid 
 of them, but in God's own time other defenders and new advocates will arise to con- 
 front you. It will live lon:^ after you have perished. Polic'<'R may change, laws may 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 29 
 
 be repealed, parties may be dissolved, but this cause will remain to agitate parties and 
 bring concern to their managers until it triumphs. You cannot kill it with the sword, 
 you cannot burn it with fire, you cannot bury it with ballots, so that it will not come 
 up again. There is a majesty and a sanctity about a great cause that begets two new 
 defenders for every one that falls in its behalf." 
 
 The liquor interests are planning more than the control of the general assembly. 
 They plan the reorganization of the supreme court itself, so that if they should fail 
 again in their effort at the law's repeal they can be sure of its nullification and of your 
 disfranchisement at* the hands of that august tribunal. One of the judges who joined 
 in the decree sustaining the law will go off the bench in January. He is not a candi- 
 date for re-elecetion. His successor is to be chosen at the election in November. One 
 of the judges who declared the law unconstitutional and void has been renominated 
 by his party, and is a candidate for re-election. 
 
 If the liquor interests can secure his re-election and the election of one other 
 judge, the court will be "wet." In that event another case involving the constitution- 
 ality of the law will be begun within thirty days after the result of the election is 
 known, and railroaded to the supreme court, and there the law will go to its death. 
 
 I make no personal attack upon Judge Montgomery for his dissenting opinion. 
 I believe him to be an honorable man. I think he decided the law as he believed it to 
 be, and I would not have him decide against his convictions. For so deciding I do not 
 blame him. Indeed, I honor him for it. But I do blame him for having such a con- 
 viction, a conviction which I believe to be erroneous, and which, if written into the 
 law of the land by the court's decision, will strike down a wholesome and righteous 
 statute and work irreparable harm to society in this commonwealth. I would not have 
 him write an opinion contrary to his conviction, but I would take from him power and 
 opportunity to write any opinion upon the subject at all. He has no more right to 
 ask or expect men who believe in the beneficence and the validity of this law to vote 
 to clothe him with power to strike it down, than a candidate for the legislature who 
 intends to vote for its repeal has to ask or expect such men to vote for him that he 
 may have power and opportunity to kill it by repeal. Believing that Judge Montgomery, 
 however honest and sincere in his opinion is grievously in error as to the invalidity 
 of this law, it is my bounden duty to cry out against his error and to warn the friends 
 of the law of the effect of his re-election. 
 
 Having silenced one party and committed the other to the law's repeal, its enemies 
 now seek to muzzle the Christian ministry of the state and to silence the Christian 
 pulpit, so that there shall be heard no voice in its behalf. 
 
 They insist that the sphere of the church is filled when it provides for the conduct 
 of worship, the preservation of doctrine and the salvation of the individual; that it 
 should shut its eyes to the woes of the race, to the evils about in the world in which it 
 is; that it may perform works of charity for the amelioration of evil conditions, but 
 it must not concern itself with the removal of the things which cause the evil condi- 
 tions; that it may do charity, but must not seek the reform of the evils that create 
 the need of charity; that church and state are separate, and the church must remam 
 dumb however Godless the state becomes; that the Christian ministry should devote 
 its time to the preaching of the gospel and leave politics to the politicians. 
 
30 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 1 am unable to consent to this doctrine. 1 hold the mission of the church is 
 wider than the individual and its sphere broader than the simple amelioration of un- 
 wholesome conditions. Its mission includes the individual, but it includes society also. 
 Its sphere carries it to the relief of unwholesome conditions, but it carries it also to the 
 study and removal of the things that cause unwholesome conditions. 
 
 1 believe that it should adapt its mission to the conditions and needs of the day, 
 to the regeneration of society as a whole. Things as well as people must be changed. 
 It should concern itself with the cause of sin as earnestly as with the results of sin. 
 If the cause of sin can be found and removed, there will be no sin aaid no results of sin 
 to be concerned about. It is the duty of the church to save our common liumanity. 
 Her heart beat should quicken with the quickening tide of human life about her. 
 
 1 believe that she should make every moral conflict her own; that in her pulpits 
 great moral questions should receive downright and fearless discussion; that she 
 should throw her immense weight on the moral side of every question; that her obli- 
 gation lies wherever a moral issue is or can be raised; that she is bound to speak 
 against wrongs wherever found ; that she must insist that men go right in life whether 
 in private or in public station ; that the religion of Christ is a diffused and living force, 
 melting evil customs, breaking down wicked institutions, affecting all it touches. 
 
 I do not believe in mixing either business or politics with religion, but ] do be- 
 lieve in mixing religion with both business and politics. I do not believe the church 
 should enter politics to get funds from public treasuries for her use, to secure legis- 
 lative mandate for her ritual, or police support for her doctrines, but I do believe that 
 religion driven from the field of state and national interests into the refuge of private 
 life, loses its hold upon the world and ceases to be effective among men. 1 believe 
 there are high qualities and influences which can be created only by the Christian 
 church and that it is, therefore, her duty to exert herself to reach the cosial and polit- 
 ical life of the nation; that her place is on the firing line where the battle is; that it is 
 a part of her business to translate Christ's teachings into the activities of human af- 
 fairs; that she oughtto be a humanizing influence; that is her bounden duty, when 
 she can, to create moral issues, and to so press them as to compel political parties to 
 espouse them; that it is her mission to save both the individual and the race. 
 
 I believe in the divorcement of church and state, that the machinery of the two 
 should be kept absolutely separate, but 1 also believe that the state needs a church de- 
 voted to the moral welfare of society ; that liberty cannot survive without religion ; that 
 any people must be religious to be free; that both church and state should be the 
 servants of humanity. 
 
 I believe the obligation of the church requires her to assail every wrongful rela- 
 tion among men, and to defend every rightful relation; that besides the hope of per- 
 sonal salvation she ought to plant the social hope. 
 
 1 believe she ought to refuse to be muzzled or to keep silent on any great matter. 
 Evils cannot be destroyed or eradicated by saying nothing about them. 
 
 Some of my political friends have said to me, "Local option is a forlorn hope. 
 Nothing you can do will save it. Its doom is sealed. The cause of temperance is a 
 failing cause. The evil of intemperance has always been in the world, it will always be 
 in the world. You cannot change human nature. A sober people is a barren ideality. 
 
COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 31 
 
 A saloonless state an iridescent dream. Why lead this forlorn hope? WTiy throw 
 yourself into this breach at such a cost? You are a radical, a fanatic." 
 
 I have answered, "I can do no otherwise. I have had the dream. I have caught 
 ihe vision. You say we can't change human nature, but we have changed human na- 
 ture, and we shall yet change it more. Man has risen out of the evil of ignorance, out of 
 the evil of superstition, out of the evil of idolatry, out of the evil of tryanny, out of 
 the evil of slavery, and he will yet rise out of the evil of intemperance. God is not 
 yet bankrupt. In the long fight stretching through the centuries His arm will be the 
 strongest. We may lose this battle, but we will not lose the war, and we are engaged 
 in a war. Right will ultimately prevail. 
 
 "You say local option is a forlorn hope. It may be. God knows. But hear me! 
 There was a time when the great reformation was a forlorn hope. There was a time in 
 the days of the Stuarts when English liberty was a forlorn hope. There was a time 
 when religious freedom was a forlorn hope throughout the world. There was a time 
 when representative government was a forlorn hope. There was a time when the 
 abolition of chattle slavery was a forlorn hope. Aye, there was a time when to mortal 
 minds the Christian religion was a forlorn hope — ^the manger-born Christ an exile in 
 the land of Egyptians. 
 
 "But Martin Luther, Savonarola, Oliver Cromwell, John Calvin, John Wesley, 
 Washington, Wendel Phillips and Abraham Lincoln touched them with the fire of their 
 consecrated genius and they became living, resistless, evolutional causes, lifting the race 
 into light and freedom. You should be careful how you classify a man lest you un- 
 wittingly give him company among the immortals." 
 
 But, my friends, the local option law is not yet repealed. Nor is it yet invali- 
 dated. A battle is not lost until it is fought out. This law is no fair-weather child. 
 It was born of pain and travail. Storm and stress have marked its days. Its friends 
 have had to fight for it from the hour of its conception. They fought its would-be 
 stranglers at its birth. They fought its would-be repealers during its cradle days. 
 They fought its would-be nullifiers in the solemn precincts of the supreme court. 
 And they will fight for it in this free forum. And if in the fight they slip the ties of 
 party, its enemies cannot complain, for they will do the same. There will be, however, 
 this difference. It» friends will be fighting in a holy cause, its enemies in as unrighteous 
 a cause as ever summoned men to combat. 
 
 FINAL APPEAL. 
 
 A just franchise, fairly won and wisely, widely used, is in peril — a franchise that 
 belongs to us not alone by present law, but by divine right — a right inherent in us as 
 men — a sacred, priceless right! 
 
 Men of Indiana! You who hate the usurpation of power by corn-.pt and wicked 
 special interests; 
 
 You who believe in the rights of the individual man, in the democracy of the people. 
 
 You who oppose the prostitution of womanhood; 
 
 You who are against the exploitation of childhood; 
 
 You who love your fellows; 
 
 You who have taken upon your lips the name of the Holy Christ and upon your 
 souls the obligation of social service; 
 
32 
 
 COUNTY OPTION IN INDIANA 
 
 You in whom the love of home and wife and child is not yet dead, whose alta 
 fires are not yet out, whose blood is not yet cold ; 
 
 To you I appeal. On this issue the battle drum is beating. The muster roll 
 being called. Now, even now, is mar time. Here, the field. Today, the time; aye, thij 
 very hour! The issue is yours. Will you defend it, or will you run away? Will yoi 
 stand and hold the ground you have won, or will you yield your rights? Will yoi 
 bend before the storm, or will you keep the faith and quit yourselves like men? Yot 
 are not wont to run away! In other days you've been tried and true. Why wavei 
 now? Stirred by 
 
 "The mighty hopes that make us men" let us rise and strike a freeman's blow foi 
 a freeman's right. Let us not take this offered lie for the truth we have. Let us pu^ 
 our feet upon this traffic while we have the power, that our children and our children*is 
 children in after years may safely come this way. Let us pull up together. Let us gi 
 this road though we go aknee. Let us lift our hands and loose our tongues and tell 
 the truth about this foe of human kind. Let us tell the truth about it, aye, tell th< 
 truth! Tell it: 
 
 Until its wickedness shall be laid bare ; 
 
 Until the poverty it creates shall cease to be ; 
 
 Until the pauperism it produces shall disappear ; 
 
 Until its wrongs to womanhood and its injustice to childhood shall be exposed; 
 Tell it: 
 
 Until almshouses and hospitals shall be no longer needed to house the defective 
 it creates; 
 
 Until jails and prisons shall be emptied of their victims; 
 
 Until the insanity it begets shall cloud the intellects of men no more ; 
 
 Until the crime it impels shall no longer be laid upon the souls of men; 
 
 Until murder shall stop its riot and arson its carnival; Tell it: 
 
 Until childhood shall be robbed no longer of its birthright-^he right to a fei 
 happy, cloudless years, to a well-regulated home, to wholesome food, to 
 moral environment, to educational advantages, to parental care, affectiot 
 and direction, to a "fair chance" to develop physical strength, mental powc^ 
 and moral stamina, to a "square deal" from every man and woman beneatl 
 the flag; Tell it: 
 
 Until men shall see it with the blood upon its naked, knotted hands ; 
 
 Until fathers shall cease to neglect their offspring; 
 
 Until mothers need fear no more for the children they bear; Tell it] 
 
 Until the corrupter of boys, this ravisher of girls, this despoiler of homes, shall 
 
 stand condemned, with sentence of death pronounced against it, arrayed iot 
 
 execution; Tell it: 
 
 Until the Nation shall hear, and hearing, be convinced ; 
 
 Until the public conscience shall cry out ; 
 
 Until dumb tongues speak and dead feet start; Tell it: 
 
 Until men shall feel anew the Cromwell fire, the Lincoln consecration ; 
 
 Until the race shall stand forever freed of its curse ; 
 
 Until this Republic shall become a saloonless land, this flag a stainless embleml 
 

 TnaXana. 
 
 option in 
 
 I6H2 
 
 IVl 
 
 rur^-^ — <^ ^^ 
 
 RETURN 
 
 CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 202 Main Library 
 
 LOAN PERIOD 1 
 HOME USE 
 
 2 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 6 
 
 ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECAUED AFTER 7 DAYS 
 
 1 -month loons moy be renewed by colling 642-3405 
 
 6-month loons may be rechorged by bringing books to Circulation Desk 
 
 Renewals and recharges may be mode 4 days prior to due dote 
 
 DUE AS STAMPED BELOW 
 
 MftR \^ 1Q8? ^ 
 
 
 
 RBSEIVE 
 
 3 BY 
 
 
 MAR ] 5 1 
 
 m 
 
 
 iORCUUTiON 
 
 DEPT. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 
 FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 12/80 BERKELEY CA 94720 
 
 ®s