The Illinois issue., April 13, 1906, Page 2, Image 2

About The Illinois issue. (Chicago, Ill. ;) 1906-1912

Image provided by: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

                
The Barroom a Bank
The barroom is a bank. You deposit your money—and lose
it; your time—and lose it; your character—and lose it; your
health—and lose it; your strength—and lose it; your manly inde
pendence—and lose it; your self-control—and lose it; your home
comfort—and lose .it; your wife’s happiness— and lose it; your
own Soul—and lose it.—Selected.
fifths of the taxes of the entire state. It would seem that it comes of a very
bad grace for these “liberty-lovers” (?) of personal liberty to speak of
“intimidations and threats” when for years past they have been saying
that unless you bow your knee to the whisky power, we will defeat you.
Listen to what the president of this Retail Liquor Dealers’ Protective
Association said at their Rockford meeting on September 17, 1901: “My
first duty as your president was to make suitable provisions to have our
Association fairly represented at our meeting of the state legislature at
Springfield. I appointed a committee consisting of Ex-president John S.
Gainty, Vice-president Henry Maiwurm, and T. J. Murray of Springfield.
It would not be wise for me to relate to you the detail of the work of these
gentlemen. . . . The policy of this organization is to watch all prospective
legislation and to kill the same before it has a chance to do us any harm.
Let me remind you that while other state legislatures are constantly saddling
the trade with the most villainous laws, we in Illinois have been fortunate
enough to be quietly left alone for the past twenty years, which is solely
due to the fact that we have one of the strongest and most efficient managed
organizations in the country. I firmly believe that if such did not exist,
we would have been, ere this, well nigh driven out of business.”
What does this mean? It means that this Retail Liquor Dealers’ Pro
tective Association proposes to see to it that nothing shall be done that will
in any way restrict the traffic. Listen to another utterance of the president
of this Association and see whether they propose to “intimidate” by threats
of political extermination men who want to go to the legislature: “ I cannot
urge upon you too much the absolute necessity of closely watching the work
of the legislature and for you upon your return home to use every effort
to see that liberal minded men, no matter what political party, are elected
to the legislature.”
Does not this mean to deteat every man that it is possible tor tnem to
defeat who is not in favor of the perpetuation of the saloon? Does not
this mean, if possible to defeat every man who is liberty-loving enough to
want to have the right to vote upon this question? Does this not mean that
the farmer who comes to town to do his trading, brings his wife, shall
be forced to crowd through a lot of drunken hoodlums before the saloons?
Does not this mean that the farmer’s boy is exposed to the saloon when he
comes to town to trade? Does not this mean that the farmers shall be
taxed to prosecute the criminals made by the saloon? And yet if this
“liberty-loving man” desires to control this traffic by his vote, he shall be
called an “irresponsible fanatic,” one who pays no taxes and such epithets.
Isn’t it time that the American people rise up in their power and smash the
Retail Liquor Dealers’ Protective Association, which proposes in its pub
lished statements to stand by men in violation of law and protect men who
sell whisky from the clutches of the law if they are sued for damages or
arrested for selling to a minor or a drunkard?
It seems that the liberty-loving people are on the side of the party that
says that this matter ought to be settled by a majority vote. How can a man
be liberty-loving and still say that American citizens have no right to
protect their families, their homes and their property by their vote?
Larry Gets Leery
Stood Against American Principle of
Self Government
At the coming primaries, there is a
great principle at stake, the greatest
that has been presented to the people
of this senatorial district, since senators
were elected. The issue has been raised
by Larry Magill, for everybody knows
he never voted for the local option bill,
when he failed to act on this score, he
simply took the church people’s, the
saloon keeper’s and your rights away at
the ballot box—a right that is sacred
to every true American.
Princplp, that’s what we base our
fight on against Larry Magill. Did he
vote for or against the local option bill?
The principle is, “Be a man or a mouse.”
Larry Magill is treacherous, he is not
to be trusted and saloon keepers will
vote with the church people by putting
Larry Magill out of business. The
biped of Magill cannot secure a news
paper of the smallest influence to make
a plea for him, if any paper does, you
can rest assured that it’s a paid article.
Magill has had cards printed that he
is sending out to hoodwink the honest
farmer. Can he hoodwink them? No;
the farmer and voter have long ago re
solved to put Larry Magill on the shelf,
and all the cards he can pay for cannot
injure the Independent or secure him
one solitary vote. When you get one
of those cards that Magill has had
printed, you will understand the tactics
of this Larry Magill who is pushing him
self upon the people and wants to repre
sent us as senator. Nay; even Justice
at the State House would bow her head
in shame were that man to come as a
senator to represent this senatorial dis
trict and the good and great county of
Hock Island. See that Prank A. Landee
gets your vote—but Larry Magill,
Never. We might suggest that Larry
reprint the article that appeared in the
Independent, headed, “Where Does He
Get It?” If he don’t, we will.—Milan
Independent.
Of Course They Did
Several Companies Have Quit Financing
the Saloons
“Our Standard” in speaking of the
smaller increase in the number of sa
loons in the State last year says:
“Those in position to know, say that it
was not the Moore law, but the brewers
have stopped financing saloons.” Cer
tainly. They have stopped financing
saloons in 143 townships and 7 city
wards. Certainly the brewers have
stopped financing about 400 saloons and
they have done so because these saloons
will have to close as the result of re
monstrances. It remains to be seen
whether the brewers will finance blind
tigers in these places.—Indiana Issue.