The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1882-09-07


number of the people demand that any
great public question once passed upon
be again considered in some form that
justice, fairness and right requires that
it be done, because it would work no
Injustice to any one, as there exists
in the public mind a differ
ence of opinion as 10 the wisdom and
policy of what is known as the prohibit
tory amendment to our constitution and
because OF the uncertainty whether said
amendment fairly and honestly reflects
the judgment and will of a majority of
the people OF Kansas on that subject,
and il being important that the question
be fully and finally settled at the earliest
possible moment, therefore
Resolved, That we are in favor Of a
resubmission of the prOhibitory amend
ment 10 the constitution of the state of
Kansas at the general election of state
officers in November 1884, believing
that by that time the people of the state
will be fully advised as to the feasibility
of said amendment.
10. This being the first representative
meeting of the Democratic party of Kan
sas since the assassination of the late
President James A. Garfield, we deem
it due to the country to his memory and
TO the party we represent that we e&-
press as we now do our sense Of that ter
rible and melancholy event as great
public calamity and the events proceed
ing the assassination of the president,
challenge our thoughtful consideration
in connection with the baneful and dan
gerous ianaticism Of personal and parti-
ian politics.
NJ. b. v. BENNETT.
T. j. HUDSON.
=. G. LOWE.
SAM. w. HOWE.
Jos. Z. RIGGs.
Il. J. SHERIDAN.
II. II. STANTON.
G. J. VAN ALLEN
T. Moonlight moved that the majority
report be adopted.
Mr.. Riggs, of Douglas, moved that the
minority be substituted for the majority
report.
Chairman Fenlon then read that part
of the report of the committee on rules
and order of business regulating the
order of debate.
Mr.. Riggs delivered very moderate
speech in favor of the adoption of the
substitute to the majority report. There
was, he said, but one difference existing
in the Democratic party of the state, and
that was on the question of the prohibit
tory amendment. He was not one who
believed that Democracy and free whisky
were synonymous. He characterized the
prohibitory amendment as
INTERNAL AND ATROCIOUs,
and stated that there were thousands of
temperance Democrats in the state,
Democrats who believed honestly in the
prohibition principle, who deprecated
the amendment because of its narrow
ness and fanatIcism. AS for himself he
was an anti-prohibitionist from princI-
pie, and did not believe in
law which dictated to him
as to what he should do in the matter of
his personal habits. But he believed the
stand of the minority on the subject of
the prohibitory amendment was the pop
er one and trusted the convention would
See fit to adopt it. In two years the peo.
pie would be better able to vote thought
fully upon the subject of the prohibito-
ry amendment and then they could de-
eide, apart and free from personal feel
| ing, as to whether they wanted it swept
from the statute book or so amended as
to answer and carry out the purpose for
which it was enacted. He made
PLEA FOR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY,
and made a bid for the German vote by
stating that the action of the Republi-
cans and the speeches of the Republican
leaders had characterized this class of
citizens as a beer and whisky loving
class; but they were not They simply
sought that individual liberty to which
! the were entitled.
Mr.. McCleverty, of Bourbon, spoke in
favor of the report of the majority of the
committee. He remarked by way of
starting out that the sage of Gramercv
Park had been elected president of the
| United States in 1876, but through the
CowARDICE OF THE DEMOCRACY
they had allowed the Republicans to
seat the man who was not elected and
therefore not entitled to the seat Com
ing down to the question before the
house, he hurled back the imputation
that the Democratic party was the whis-
| ky party, but declared that 1t was in ia
vor of proper regulation of the liquor
traffic. He did not believe that the
amendment should be resubmitted to
| the people, but that they should be al
lowed to vote upon law more in &C
| cordance with their ideas of individual
! liberty. He did not believe in a law
which endeavored 20 regulate individual
habits. He did not want law which
said when he should go TO church, what
church he shouldgo TO and how long he
should stay there. Prohibitory laws
| had
NEVER BEEN A SUCCESS
The experience of Michigan and
Massachusetts had abundantly Lroved
that.
Montgomery Cochran, of Atchison,
remarked that he had been brought mn
TO disbelieve in a paternal government.
| He thought every man should be
HIS OWN GUARDIAN.
There were but two ideas in this coun-
try, that advocated by the Republicans
\ of paternal government and that ad-
vocaed by the Democracy which guar
/ anteed to every man his individual
! liberty. He was opposed TO every form
| of sumptuary legislation. He was op-
posed to the majority report because it
was too dictAtoIal. He would, how
| ever, stand by the action of the conven-
| ton. For that matter, both the majori-
| ~ and minority reports were too much
| like stump speeches and therefore too
| long. If he were TO choose between the
| two reports he would choose the one
which had the tewest words Neither
report contained true Democracy. As
to prohibition, he did not believe In it,
No law should be passed which was in
its nature prohibitory of such a thing
as the liquor traffic, for it could not be
prohibited. 1t should be regulated
Mr.. Chas. Griffin, of Atkinson, was
not believer in prohibition. He did
not believe in 1t as q matter of principle.
He wanted the convention to place itself
square upon this question. The
Democracy was opposed to prohibition
and had always declared so whenever
the matter was brought up in any of its
conventions. He said if an anti-prohi-
bition plank were placed in the party
platform the Democracy would, for the
first time,
SWEEP THE STATE
and elect an executive who would faith
fully enforce the laws upon the statute
books.
Mr.. 7. J. Hudson, of Wilson, was not
in favor Of touching the subject of pro
hibition at all. He did not believe the
Democrats should mix up in Republican
family rows at all. Prohibition should
not be dragged into the platform. He
was not in favor of saloons. and in that,
he said, he might not be in accord with
the majority of the Democracy of the
state. He represented constituency of
farmers E7ho were in favor of the en-
forcement of the Jaws upon the statute
book. They would not stand anything
that looked
LIKE MULTIPLICATION
He remembered that in 1854 the Dem
ocratic Astionsl convention put q reso-
luton in its platform that the war was
failure, and the Democracy had stag
gered under the weight of that declare.
tiap ever since. We should make no
such naistake a. this Time Ii would de-
prive the party Of thousands of honest
Democratic votes An anti prohibition
plank in the platform would be fatal
mistaEe.
Tha sensation of the morning, how
ever, was the speech of Mr. NJ. v b.
Bennett, aud il
WAS A RoUsER-
Van has come fresh from the lecture
platform and was primed for the greatest |
effort Of his life. In opening he said II |