The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1880-09-24

81. John win Is elected, fhe amsndnent win
be adopted, and tie legisla&ion needed 70 carry
whether this Win - the permanent policy Of
Kansas no ono Dan teli -. JosepA Herald.
The writer Of the above is, NO doubt, Wen
Wilder. an old Kansas citizen, Republican and
omoeholder. He knows that heretofore the
Of Kansas was equivalent to an election, no
matter how obnoxious the man might be. He
Knows also that any proposition, no matter how
sas, was certain to, and did carry. But, in this
case, we sincerely hope Mr.. Wilder Is mistaken
We know OF nothing that could happen to Kan
injury to the State than the proposed prohibi-
tory amendment. We belieue Nth him, that If
st. John Is elected the amendment sciH be adopted,
into effect sOiA be made. The poinf, them is to de-
feat St. John He can be defeated If the people Of
Kansas consult their material interests.-Atchi-
SON Patriot.
We call the especial attention of temperance
Democrats to the above declaration of one Of the
leading organs of their party in the State. Major
Ross, the Democratic candidate for Governor,
Is opposed to the amendment, and great effort
is being made not only to induce whisky Re-
publicans to scratch st. John, but to vote for
Ross. Is it not, therefore, the duty of temper
ance Democrats to vote for st. John instead of
Ross? The italicised portion Of the extract is
uuquestionably true, and tits very important
that, beside adopting the amendment, Gov
ernOr and Legislature shall be chosen who are
heartily in favor of enforcing INFLAMMATION No
tionalisf.
Every temperance man is well aware
of the fact that the Democracy have
some hope of beating Gov. St. John.
They expect to beat him with E. G..
Ross. Mr.. Ross stated in lola not
three months ago that he was against
the proposed temperance amendment.
His position is well known all over the
State. If he was elected it would be
in his power to seriously cripple if not
entirely veto all laws favoring the en-
forcement of the spirit of the amend
ment.
All over the State the temperance
people are hard at work, not only to
carry the amendment, but also to elect
officers who will help carry out the
needed after legislation. All true
temperance men are out-spoken on
this matter. They recognize the fact
that the House aud Senate must be
composed of men favorable to such
legislation. They also recognize the
fact that the Governor must be in ac-
cord with the same ideas. In view of
these facts we cannot see why any
man claiming to believe in temperance
and favoring the amendment can work
or vote for Ross.
This fight, in the language of a
Democrat, has been to a certain extent
forced on the Republican party. We
do not believe, however, that it will
be especially OBNOXIOUS" or that it
will seriously hurt the party. Moral
~, it is right. AS a matter of party
policy it may have been unwise. But
now that st. John has been nominal
ed, we want temperance men to stand
up to the rack. If he was good enough
before nomination, he is equally good
now. Democrats who favored him
then can support him now. We do
not think that his receiving a nominal
ton by the only party who could have
elected him, has hurt his temperance
record or views.
Some may think we are suddenly
changing front. It is true to some ex-
tent. But when men who have abus- |
ed US for months for not voting tenn
perance city council ticket, now come
out against st. John and are for anti
amendment Ross, it is time to''squeal."
For instance, the chief officer of the
lodge here in lola who,
until very recently, was SO strongly |
for st. John and the amendment that |
be denounced all opposing him as
and traitors to the temper
ance cause, now comes out in favor of
Ross. IF this is permitted by temper
ance Republicans, and the temperance
Democrats are allowed to swallow
their past protestations where is St.
John to get his majority? The Dem
Dcrats are proselyting among different
whisky Republicans, and at the same
time calling home their decoy ducks.
It is time to call halt; and for one,
we now agree, that vote against st.
John, especially if cast for a man who
would veto temperance legislation, is
4 vote against the amendment.
st. Johns majority two years ago
was not a large one. It could be over
come, and there is some danger that
he will be defeated. Hence, we insist |
that temperance men should spot