Sunday Closing in Oakland.
A number of zealous Sunday advocates have presented a list of petitioners before the municipal council of this city, asking that the question of Sunday closing of saloons be submitted to the people at the coming municipal election, that the “city fathers” to be then elected may thus have the opinion of the people to guide them in legislation on the question. On the other hand, some earnest Prohibitionists are circulating the following: “To the Honorable the City Council of the city of Oakland: “The undersigned, residents and voters of the city of Oakland, believe that the intelligent conviction of the people of this city has reached the conclusion that the institution known as ‘THE SALOON’ is not only not wanted on Sunday, but is not wanted at all; “That city officers to be elected at the coming election may be instructed as to their action on the saloon question, nothing could be more instructive to them as to the will of the people than the ascertainment of public sentiment by a direct vote. “We therefore pray your honorable body that you submit to the popular vote at the coming election this question: ‘Shall the saloons of Oakland be closed all the time?’ ” But this is as wretchedly equivocal as it is ungrammatical. It seems to imply that if the petitioners can not get the closing of saloons all the time, they will take the “half loaf,” Sunday closing—a wretched subterfuge as a temperance measure, but a band of steel for Church and State union. But if the Prohibitionists of Oakland desire absolute prohibition, why not express it clearly, emphatically, and unequivocally, in words something like these:— To the Honorable, the City Council of Oakland:— The undersigned, residents and voters of the city of Oakland, believing it to be for the good of the city financially and otherwise if the institution known as the “saloon” did not exist in our borders, earnestly pray your honorable body that you submit to the popular vote at the coming election this question, “Shall the saloons of Oakland be abolished?” This could be understood; and there is no compromise in it, constructive or otherwise.