New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-04-09
THE PEOPLE AGAINST RUM.

CoSsEcrIcUT and RHoDE ISLAND have just
held their Annual State Elections, under cir
cumstances asfavOrable 10 the cause of Liquor
selling as can be hoped ever TO recur. The
Federal Government has just passed into the
hands Of the party whose members are well
known TO be, in the main, most favorable to
the Liquor Traffic; that party has just com.
meDced the distribution of the Spells of Vic
tory, diffusing an unwonted fermentation
through its ranks and quickening the zeal even
OF the usually lukewarm and needless. The
opposing host, on the other hand, broken by a
signal defeat and disinclined to wage a blind
andneedless warfare against the new National
| Administration, made no concerted and ener-
getic effort to rally its voters to the polls.
The advantage gained to Rum from this state
of par ses could not have amounted to less than
| Three Thousand Votes in Connecticut and
One Thousand in Rhode Island The facts,
moi eover, that Gov. Seymour was known and
Gov. Allen fairly supposed to be hostile to
Liquor Prohibition, necessarily operated
against the good cause. Those who, whether
on party or personal grounds were committed
to or working for the reelection of these gen.
tlemen, could not heartily and efficiently labor
for the establishment Of policy to which they
were known TO be opposed.
And yet, while the candidates for Congress
and State Offices most friendly to the National
| Administration have uniformly been chosen by
large msiOrities, the indications that ma
jOrity of those same voters-much more, of the
whole PeOple--are in favor of the Maine Law,
are not 10 be resisted. RHODE ISLAND has
| given a majority of nearly One Thousand
against the Repeal of her new PrOhibitOry
law, on direct and unequiyocal issue while
! CosSEcrIcUT has chosen a decided majority of
| Representatives favorable TO such a law.
Wherever the issue was so broadly made that
the question was distinctly Rum or Prohibi
ton, there the result was most cheer
ing New Haven Norwich, Danbury, New
London, MiddletOEn, Stamford, NOrwalk,
and New. Milford were carried by and for the
Maine Law; Litchfeld lost only by two or
three votes and We should not have despaired
even Of rum sOdden Hartford and Bridgeport
if the question Of Rum or No Rum had been
the only one presented
The late Legislature of Rhode Island passed
an amended Maine Law, obvisting Judge
Curtiss cayils with respect TO the old one the
People have now emphatieally approved and
sustained this amended law Yet a Demo
cratic Legislature has at the same time been
chosen-the People considering the Liquor
question settled beyond apPeal-and now this
Legislature is TO be urged TO repeal the act
expressly ratified BY their masters and crea.
tors We do net believe they viii thus rush
on selfdestruction.
We cannot say whether the Connecticut
House will pass the Maine Law as majority
of its Members stand pledged to do but We
believe il will. But no violation of pledges on
the part of men who were Maine Law only 10
secure the votes of its friends can effect the
moral OF the triumph. The People of Connec-
ticut are Maine Law to-day: if the License
party doubt this, let them submit the question
TO direct Popular Vote. We dare them to
that ordeal
Minnesota. Vermont, and now Rhode Island,
have voted directly on the question of Maine
Law or No Maine Law, and each one has de-
eisively sustained the principle of Prohibition.
Maine, Massachusetts,, and now Connecticut,
have done the same thing BY an indirect vote.
Nowhere have the People been asked TO sus-
tain Prohibitory Law and failed to respond as