The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1882-08-12
A Voice Fom the People.

The official announcement of the
vote for and against prohibition 10
iowa calls public attention to an eX-
traordinary event. The majority in
favor of the amendment was large,
29,753, although its opponents were
confident of success even on the day
of the election, and had made the
utmost eXertiOns. 1t cannot be said
that the result was due to public in
difference or inattentiOn, as often
happens when important questions
are decided at special elections, more
by the absence of opponents than by
the zeal of friends. In this case the
total vote was sufficiently large to
prove that the whole State lad been
aroused in remarkable degree The
aggregate was 281 ,113. of which 1861
1876 votes were for the prohibitOry
amendment, and 125,677 against it.
At the regular State election of 1881 +,
when a Governor and other State
officers and a Legislature were chosen,
the total vote was only 234, 1854. With
no offices to fill, no patronage or plum
der to call out the efforts of politi-
cal workers, no organized parties to
arouse public sentiment, and to bring
out hosts of voters by the mere pride
of party, at this election over $4,000
voters went to the polls and voted in
the busiest part of the year for farm
ers, who had refused to take the
trouble to vote for their respective
parties and for personal friends and
neighbOrs who were candidates at the
regular fall election last year. In the
exciting Presidential election of 1880,
the total vote was 323,065, but that
was much the largest vote ever cast
in the State, and it is an amazing
thing that seven-eights of the maxi
mum number of voters then cast
should have been called out in an
election to decide upon the adoption
of a constitutional amendment.
AS it cannot be said that the result
was Cue to negligence or Indifference
of the people, so it was clearly not
due to any evasion or ambiguity in
the measure submitted. The amend
ment is peculiarly sweeping in its
provisions and emphatic in its terms.
1t prohibits not only selling, but
drinking and even the manufacture
of intoxicating beverages, and not
only the drinking, selling or manu-
factUre Of strong liquors, but the
drinking, selling and manufacture of
ale and beer. In every respect, it is
a particularly radical and stalWart
measure. There can be no sort OF
! doubt that the people who voted for
it intended as far as human legiSla-
| ton can, to make all use of intOxicat-
ing drinks impossible in the State of
Iowa, except as individuals may be
disposed and able to import from
other States liquors for their own use.
This decision is the more remark
able because Iowa has a large number
Of fCreign-bOrn citizens, who usually
cling with tenacity to the customs of
their native lands. The ratio of
foreign-born Inhabitants never fully
expresses the strength of that ele-
ment, because the children of foreign
born parents are mainly enumerated
as natives. In Iowa, however, there
were 2S7 $50 males of the voting age
who were born in this country, and
l26, l03 who were born in foreign
countries. so that over 80 per cent of
the whole number were born abroad
More than One-third of the foreign
born inhabitants came from Ger
many, and much more than sixth
from Ireland. The development of
an overwhelming and uncompromis-
ing prohibitory sentiment in State
haying such elements of population
is an especially noteworthy circum@
stance. Doubtless it is in part due to
the fact that Iowa is a State in which
the urban population is unusually
small, and where the rural and farm
ing population largely predominates.
The State has 1S5,35I farms, of which
l4l,177 are occupied by the owners.
and A, liza are rented, while the whole
State has only 3l0,S94 families and
30l ,5O7 dwellings. These facts re-
garding the social and industrial con-
dition of the State help to- explain a
vote which, even with these to ex-
plain it, must still be regarded with
deep interest by every publicist. and
with surprise by every politician
". Y. Tribune.
. A IL II