Page:History of Oregon Newspapers.pdf/184

Rh the union who, on and after Monday, March 12, "shall permit the introduction of or allow to be read in his place of business either the Oregonian or the Telegram." The secretary was directed to notify liquor dealers, saloon-keepers, brewers, and others throughout Oregon and Washington of the situation and request them to cooperate.

"The union (said the News of March 12) will meet again today or tomorrow in secret session, to perfect preparations for combined action. The indignation is very pronounced against the council for its hasty and unjustifiable action. The ordinance means ruin and annihilation to the saloons and breweries of Portland, and there is every probability of a It will vigorous resistance being made to its enforcement. undoubtedly prove to be a formidable factor in the approaching city election."

The Daily News of March 13 told of secret sessions held by the liquor dealers' association. "The members were committed to secrecy, and the proceedings are unknown." But, the paper reported, all saloon men in Portland but one joined the organization and the wholesale dealers and brewers all joined "for self-protection against fanatical encroachments on their business." Passive and unflinching resistance in the courts and an appeal to the people in the city election were resolved upon, the paper reported.

The Oregonian finally stated its exact position in the matter in an editorial published March 19, 1883:

A license fee of $200 a year for selling liquor in Portland is much too low. It ought to be at least $400 a year or $100 a quarter. This would diminish the number of saloons, "freeze out" the lowest places, and contribute immensely to the peace and good order of the city. The only objection to the $800 license fee arises from a well-grounded apprehension that it cannot be maintained or made effective. The true policy, which is everywhere being accepted as the best attain able solution of the liquor question, is to raise the fee till the proper mean is reached between the consequence of low license or no license on the one hand and the danger of surreptitious and illicit drink-selling (through over-taxation) on the other. Between these extremes lies the most practicable and therefore the best result. It is not a matter of theory or sentiment at all. All experience shows it to be useless to expect ideal results through legislation. The best legislator is the most practical man—the man who, if he sees he cannot suppress or abolish the evils with which he has to deal, will abate or diminish them as far as he can. He is as far, too, from overstepping the bounds of prudence and judgment and