Local Option,--yes

Editor Argus:- ÏTou weie frank enough to state your views of loca option in your p iper of the ÍOth, wili you freely give some of the reasons ol those who vote yesV This liquor business is becoming of vast impoitance in this state and nation and is svotthy of carefnl consideration, You say, "if we believed by vtingfor this law the curse of drunkennesscould be removed from tliis nation, we would support it, but we believe tliat it means free whiskey and heavy taxütion. Alaiiy of us believe it will gieatly reduce dnmkenness and tliat whatever tends to reduce this "curse" is worthy the best efforts of every Citizen. jSto one beiieves this law or any other would wholly "remove" drunkenness. Tbere is no law however perfect or however well enforced. that lias wholly removed the crime or evil wlrich ip vasdesigned to prevent, vet the law is a necessity for the satetv of the people: You say "we believe that it memis free whiskey" if tliose who deal iu th's stuff believe this, why ilo thev not vote tor the lavv. If the saloon men believed they could run a successful business without pay ing $300 or $000 a year tax by votinj, for prohibition under this law they vvoukl be foolish to raise $3,000 in this countv to defeat it. You say again "ifthe same number of saloons continue after May the liquor tax wou ld amount to $40,225, tlii3 oí S30.000 is entireiy too much to tlirow away on an experiment." This $30,00( or $4(1,225 tax pakl by the saloon men out of their profits, comes out of the men icho drink the liquor; now it would be far more profltable for these men to paj this tax direct, than to pay it throuqh tlie chaimel of the saloon, forour township collectors receive only one or two eer cent forcollectinsr. while the ist ets more than 100 per cent. Tliere are Imudreds of men in this county who wou ld have good surroundings and nice homes in a very few years upon whicli to pay taxes, ït the saloons were closed. Again vou say if prohibitiou comes, it will be due to sonae of the saloon keep rs who have broken the laws. who have no respect for good order who have taken the bread froiu the mnuths of fatnishing wives and children." "If this law cairies these ame saloon keepers will be found making drunkards." Do you know of any saloon keepers who have not violated the law, who have not sold to minors, who have not sold after hours or on Sunday or legal holidavs? fío you know of any who have not made drunkards and who will not continue to do so. so long as they can continue the business? Twenty-three eounties in this state have alreády declarad the sajoons shall be closed because tliey do this kind of business. Por a number of years we have tried to '-regúlate" the sale of liquor, but it has proven a hard thing to regúlate; allofv it to be Bold six days in a week and it will be sola seven. perrait it to be sola imtil ten o'clock at night and it will be sold later. Holidays and eleetion days are their best days. We believe it will be far easierto stop the sale of liquor than to resíllate it. If the saloons are bad things we want none of them, and it is better to close them than to perpetúate their existence by receivingpart of their profits in the forïn of a tax; regulation has proveo a failure, itdon't "regúlate" let us try three vears prohibition, it may "prohibit." We do not want this county to receive a ''boom" f rom drinkers and diunkards out of prohibition counties. Already some of the saloun men are boastingof the prospect of thac kind of trade from Hillsdale countj', We have enough of that kind of people now without the topers and tramps f rom other counties. The law may be defective and need amendments like most other laws, but it is the best we have, and if supported and upheld by a law abiding people it will work a great reform in the social relation of our citizens. Youk Subscribeu. [We freely give space to the letter of our esteemed subscriber, who wntes what he believes and states his positiou so clearly. list it will be noticed that he reasons froni an assumption that prohibition under this present local option law would reduce the curse of drunkenness. Now we oppose fact to assumption. We haveresided in a town where local option was íh forcé, where the mayor, marshal and council believed in and voied for prohibition and we saw more drunkenness then than we have ever seen in A nu Arbor. üfoung men who would not have entered saloons became drunkards through meeting temptation in the variety of secret forms it assumes. Nowhere was one of social proclivities free from temptation, and the officers werepowerless to prevent it. There is no theorising about this fact. Michigan tried pioliibition for twenty years, why do not the advocates of prohibition at the present time refer to the good effects of twenty years of prohibition in Michigan? If it is not successf ui, what need is there for not taking the $3,000 tax received from the saloon keepers and lighteaing thfi general taxation. We think that the iinpression that the saloon keepers have raised $30.000 for the campaign is an erroneous one. Naturally the law abiding element of the saloon keepers, for we believe that there are some of thera who are not law breakers, are interested in defeating the measure wliich would drive them out of business, but the principal opposition to prohibition comes from the brewers, whose property would be swept away. They would ba losers, while the money which now goes mto their poekets and out into circulation in the community again, would go to Detroit, Monroe and Toledo distillers