The Weekly Kansas chief. [volume] (Troy, Kan.) 1872-1918, 1880-11-11
THE PROHIBITION AMENDMENT.

There is no doubt that the liquor amendment
10 the Constitution has been aiopted-hy ma
jority of perhaps 0O0 to p 900. We presume its
adoption woad have been inevitable, under any
circumstances, but we have not the slightest
doubt that the majority largely increased by
the actions of the men Interested in the liquor
business. Their blunders and unreasonable, sense
less actions have the whole time that
the prohibition amendment has been under discus
sion. At the beginning, thousands OF temper
ance men were opposed to the amendment. They
had no for liquor in any shape, and had no
interest in it; but they wera opposed to such leg
islatiou, and did not think it wonld do any good.
How many of these stood firm 10 the last, we do
not know; but the probability is that most Of
them were driven by the liquor men themselves
to vote for the amendment. All we know is,
that the temperance men who publicly opposed
the measure were ominously silenced, one after
another, long before the close Of the canvass.
In the first place, an association with stunning
title was formed for the purpose of opposing the
amendment, and it permitted to fall under
the management of the lowest class Of saloon
keepers. They raised large amount Of money
TO carry on the campaign, which they expended
upon dead-beat newspapers, which could not
have maintained an existence without such aid,
and of course had no influence, and upon dead
beat politicians, who had killed everything they
eve took hold Of and were ready to take money
of this association, and kill it. When it was
forced down to a question for or against whiskey
drinking, temperance men were of.
In this County, we had several fine illustrations
of the blind determination of the liquor to de-
ted for the Legislature this District He not
in favor of the amendment but had not said
much the subject The liquor men never
waited to ascertain his views; but it was known
that he was not a drunkard a habitual drink
CT, and that was taken incontrOyertible evil
dence that he was in favor of the amendment.
A deaf ear was turned TO any explanation by
himself or his friends and the people about Dom
iphan actually went wild in their opposition to
him. They gave a vote against him that was
almost unanimous, and had it not been that the
Republicans of other precincts kept their senses,
he would have been beaten. So in the Wathena
District. Robert II. Larzeere was the Republi-
can nominee for Representiye. He has vine
yard, makes wine, is interested in the manufac-
ture of wine, and was opposed to the amendment.
But the damning fact was known to the public
that he does not get drunk nor drink intOxicat-
ing liquors. A hurricane of opposition was rails
cd against him, which no power could quell, and
n larger manufacturer of wine came out a
didate in opposition to him. The result was,
both were beaten, and a man elected who has no
personal interest in the wine business
When il came to the pitch that man had to
be a drunlard in order to establish the genuine
ance men began to think it place for
them on that side of the question. We have no
doubt that this action increased the vote in favor
Of the amendment several hundred in this Coun-
ty, and it is reasonable to suppose that other
Counties had the same experience.
A number of Counties in the eastern part of
the State gave majorities against the amend
ment; but most of the Counties west of the first
tier give majorities for it-many of them over
whelming majOrities.