OCR Text |
Show VOTE OF PEOPLE 01 nomse House Committee Hears Arguments of Salt Lake Investors. VIEW OF NEWHOUSE Declares Eastern Capital Will Be Withdrawn if Measure Passes. Wh3' should not the prohibition question ques-tion be submitted to a vote of the people! peo-ple! This question -was the motif, in a way, of tho hearing on the Wootton prohibition bill conducted at tho Hotel Utah last night by the house committee commit-tee on manufactures and commerce, which now has the measure before it. More questions than that were raised against the Wootton bill, but not a speaker failed1 to ask that question in one form or another, ""What objection is there to submitting the prohibition question to the people?" Business men told what an unwholesome unwhole-some effect upon the business condition of the state they believed prohibition would bring. Samuel Kewhouso, one of the biggest builders of Salt Lake, gave to the committee what he called his ;'swan song" an earnest recital of his call upon eastern capital to aid him in his local enterprises and how the easterners east-erners held back and threatened hiia with ruin if prohibition passed. Urges Drastic Action. F. C. Schramm pleaded eloquently with the committee to make the Wootton Woot-ton bill prohibitive from top to bottom if they must recommend it. He reiterated reit-erated the request of the druggists of the state, futilly made to the sentae committee, that the clauses in the Wootton Woot-ton bill permitting drug stores to sell liquor bo eliminated. Frank Fisher, speaking for the Salt Lake breweries, said: Thero is not one word in the Wootton bill about compensation. If this bill is going to do good for everybody, why should not everybody every-body pay for it. The breweries always al-ways have to pay the costs of experiments ex-periments like "this. Prohibition laws do not prohibit except as to the breweries. Drug stores Sell whisky and wine, but we cannot sell our beer. Representatives of great investments and business interests like Mr. New-house, New-house, W. J. Halloran and D. C. Eccles of Ogden gave business reasons why the Wootton bill should not be passed, and asked the question, ' ' Why should not the prohibition question "be submitted sub-mitted to a vote of the people 1" A representative of the labor unions of the state protested against the enactment en-actment of the Wootton bill and asked, "Why not submit the question to a vote of the people!" Calls Bill Makeshift. W. D. Livingstone, one of the leaders lead-ers of the Progressive party in the state, many of whose candidates to the legislature were elected on the " allied ticket,' said he waa a prohibitionist but ''against a makeshift measure like the "Wootton bill," He asked the question, ques-tion, "Why should not the prohibition question be put to. a vote of the people?" peo-ple?" Then he added: This was the way it -was proposed at election time, although prohibition prohibi-tion was not an issue. It was an issue several years ago and a majority ma-jority of the people voted against prohibition. But in the last campaign cam-paign the "allied parties" agreed that if the prohibition question came up, they would submit it to a vote of the people. The organization organiza-tion known as the Betterment league also argued for submitting it to the vote of the people. Why tho Betterment league is unwilling to do' that now, I can 't say. But I know that the people expected it. 80 all through the meeting, in and out of the arguments against the Wootton Woot-ton bill, against the theory of prohibition, prohibi-tion, against the business upheaval it was expected to cause, ran the refrain: "Why should nto this question be submitted sub-mitted to a vote bf the people?" Mr. Schramm said he represented every ev-ery druggist in the state when ho as led that the Wootton bill be made prohibitive prohibi-tive throughout, that the druggists be prohibition from spiling liquor. "If wo must have prohibition, let us have it," said he. lie told how tho druggists argued with tho senate committee, which had informed them that the amendments as to druggists could not be interpolated because the legislators would then voto against the bill they wanted under a prohibition law to get liquor from the drug stores. He said the druggists did not want to fell liquor as propose in the Wootton bill. C. A. Faus, representing the wholesale whole-sale drug trade, said the bill would pro-elude pro-elude local wholesalers from soiling Hqnor to other states in their territory, and Impel leading retailors in Nevada and other states to bnv other drugs aside from liquor in St. Louis, Sa u Francisco, Kansas City not Salt Lake City. Newhouse Makes Plea. Mr. Newhouse 'b ' swan song ' ' was one of the dramatic incidents of the evening. The man who discovered the mines which yielded a fortune he then put into tho building and upbuilding of Salt Lake told how the panic of 1007 overtook him in tho middle of his local undortukiiJgri and how he was obliged to get financial help from eastern i n-F.uranr.o n-F.uranr.o com panics and other financial agencies. They all carefully scrutinized lotah's laws and regarded them safe for ca pi tfil 's investment. Keren My, he said, these people had Informed him that they roubl not renew the mortgages mort-gages on his property if Utah enacted a prnh ibit ion law, "You would be mir-priued,'' mir-priued,'' said ho, "to know how carefully care-fully capital weighs things like this and" how it believes legislation of this kind to be In ngoroiif . " Mr, Newhomo said ho would be able to rent t)ic stores in the buildings iust erected in State street., Ivxcluuige place n nd Fourth Sou Hi only in the event t hu t no proh ibit jon law wns cnnr (.ed the prospective tenant hnd so informed Mm. Halloran Explains Stand. W. J. Jlallonin said HO per rent, of (he people of Suit Itike were, opposed to M'ohi bit ion. Ho declared that the i Wootton bill would increase taxes 'j'.i l-.'i per cent and would wipo $15,-(100,000 $15,-(100,000 in investments off the board. Ho spoke of tho loss in Iho values of tho hotels great hotels like tho Utah and the Nowliouse. A Fred Wey subsequently subse-quently made similar statements. And Mr. Halloran wound up by asking why the prohibition question was not submitted sub-mitted to the people, as first proposed. Wesley King and J. .1. Salisbury of Salt, l.alio, Mr. Kccles and K. M. Iloag of Ogden mado similur inquiries iu their arguments. Ho did H. K. Hinsdale, representing rep-resenting the labor federations or the Htate, who also said the bill would "confiscate wages; jobs and property," arid asltod what it would give In tho place- of brea.'l and butter taken away. All classos would feel the depression, he said. Kepi'esentiit.ive O. L. Warniek, chairman chair-man of the house committee, said the hearing was for those opposed to tho bill. No talks wore made in tho nflim)-ative, nflim)-ative, although friends of lite measure were present. Chairman Wnrnick sug- Igestcd that, persons having amendmenls to propose place them in tho commit, tee s hands by "Wednesday. |