Letter to the Editor: On Liquor, Don't Believe Everything You're Told

The proposed liquor referendum questions brought to mind the scene in Guys and Dolls in which Nathan Detroit offered Sky Masterson a bet that seemed impossible for Masterson to lose. The suspicious Masterson replied with valuable advice from his father:

“One of these days in your travels, you are going to come across a guy with a nice brand new deck of cards, and this guy is going to offer to bet you that he can make the Jack of Spades jump out of the deck and squirt cider in your ear. But, son, do not take this bet, for if you do, as sure as you are standing there, you are going to end up with an ear full of cider.”

Like Sky Masterson, and based on 50+ years of practicing law, I also am suspicious. Why are two separate but overlapping questions required? What happens if one is approved but the other defeated or passed and then declared invalid? Is all of this just a ploy to con the public into permitting what was overwhelmingly rejected previously? Given the amount of concern in Moorestown, why hasn’t a special town meeting been called before the public vote so that we can get the answer to these questions and vote knowledgeably?

I wondered whether the referenda law had changed during these waning years of my practice, and was gratified that younger attorneys, strangers to me, acting pro bono, expressed the same referenda concerns. There is an old saying in legal circles: “Follow the money!” Those pro bono opinions are entitled to a higher degree of credibility than the opinions of retained attorneys, however well-meaning.

If you really want liquor commercially available throughout the town, vote for it! If you don’t, defeat both referendum questions! But don’t approve them just because a business, with an obvious vested interest, has told you how good it will be for the community, “for if you do ... you are going to end up with an ear full of [liquor].”

Donald C. Simpson
Moorestown