One Vote Shy: Washington’s Local Option Bill Goes Down in the Senate

Olympia, Feb. 19.—Special.—The feature of today’s session was the failure of the local option bill to pass the senate by one vote short of the constitutional requirement. Every member of the senate was present except Frink, who absented himself from the senate chamber just before the bills were called and returned after their disposition. The chamber was crowded with friends and opponents of the measure, and the interest was so intense throughout the afternoon that President Luce was several times compelled to demand better order in the lobby.

Senator Deckebach opposed the local option bill because he deemed it unjust. Previous trials, he said, did not bring the desired result, while it did give drug stores a very lucrative business.

Senator Belknap considered it of paramount importance. He reviewed the opening of saloons and their associations, and spoke at length on the evil influences involved. For the sake of humanity he hoped it would pass.

“It is a relic of barbarism and paganism,” was the way Senator Range alluded to the liquor traffic. He said that if the majority of the people want saloons they can have them. If they don’t want them, they need only say no, and that is the American principle.

Senator Lewis wanted it distinctly understood that he opposed saloons, but he did not consider this bill general in its effect.

Senator Crow said he favored the bill because it contained the principle of self-government.

Senator Taylor, who presented the bill by request, said it was a good proposition from a local option standpoint. He had his own views on the subject, he said, but was willing to accept the will and wishes of the 8,000 or so of his constituents. He made an eloquent plea in its support. The insane asylum, penitentiary and reform schools are filled with the curses of saloons, he said, but in time these saloons would be crushed and the better element would have the upper hand in local government.

Senator Dorr said he had experienced the defeats of local option and prohibition in the state of Iowa, when saloons were replaced by drug stores, dives and vice in all its phases. This measure, in his judgment, would place elections in the hands of saloon men, with their interests paramount to those of good government. He was opposed to the principle unless we could have national prohibition.

The roll call showed seventeen votes in the affirmative and sixteen in the negative, but, failing to receive eighteen votes, a majority of the senate, the bill was lost, as follows:

Ayes—Belknap, Brown, Campbell, Crow, Foss, Harper, Hutchinson, Lewis, Miller, McManus, Pusey, Range, Sergeant, Shaw, Taylor, Wooding—17.

Noes—Deckebach, Donohoe, Dorr, Easterday, Field, Gilbert, Hall, Horr, Ide, Kellogg, Meyler, Roberts, Van Houten, Washburn, Wilson—16.

Absent—Frink.

Senator Kellogg later occasioned surprise by moving for reconsideration. He voted against the bill, and his motion gives credence to the belief that he will vote for it when reconsidered. If he does it will pass.