The Political Tug-of-War Over the Temperance Vote
As Everett prepares to vote on the liquor question, the Labor Journal critiques state senator George Cotterill's approach and argues that labor's interests transcend the wet-dry binary.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Before an immense crowd in the Coliseum Rink, State Senator George Cotterill replied to an address delivered by Clarence Darrow. The Labor Journal found the argument unfair, noting that Cotterill used the same rhetorical tactics he accused Darrow of employing. While Cotterill attempted to position himself as the champion of the working man through temperance, the Journal argued that legislators—both wet and dry—aligned with or against labor based on political expediency rather than moral crusades. The paper points out that labor’s gains came from pressure on politicians, not from the temperance movement, and questions whether a 'dry' vote would truly benefit Everett taxpayers or merely invite the rise of bootleggers and blind pigs.
“We are convinced that leaders in the 'dry' movement... are inclined to draw a long bow in this fight and let ardor and enthusiasm take the place of analysis and reason.”
Everett’s 1910 struggle with the 'wet vs. dry' ballot initiative reflects the city’s long history of debating the social costs of vice and regulation. Just as the Trades Council questioned if prohibition would actually improve the lives of the working class, modern Everett continues to weigh the economic and social consequences of similar civic moral regulation.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.