The Sedalia weekly bazoo. [volume] (Sedalia, Mo.) 187?-1904, 1882-11-14
Charles P. Johnson's Reply to
to Senator Vests Stric-
lures About Him.
A Gentle Intimation That
Present Issues Demand
Present Arguments.
The Great Issue of the Mex: Cam
paien-A Time Coming When
Candidates Will not Boast
of Anti-Temperance
Principles.

TT 10 attack Governor Charles. Z. Johnson
for late utterances on the question OF pro-
hibition. Yesterday Globe-DemOcrat
reporter called at Governor JohnsOn's oi-
flee. and found him in very communities
tive mood. The 7. maks of Mr.. Vest evi-
IDENTIFY somewhat stirred the governor. and
the reporter, surmising as much, asked:
"Have you seen Senator Vests Interview
in the Republican,"
Eyes. sir: | have"
"What do you think OF it?"
well. l am a little surprised at his
ticking as he does. The prohibition ques-
ton seems 10 have turned him all upside
down. He loses his temper as soon as you
mention it To him. 1t has like effect on
him that waving red cloth before Texas
steer | am glad he went to the Hot
Springs. | hope he will remain there I'M
I'll after the damaging effects of The cam
paign wear of. lie talked we'll on the
tariff ESPECIALLY the burden of tax on knit
and wooden goods, on the banks ani
and against the railroads, but On prohi-
bjtion he is utterly unreasonable. For in
stance. he started out at Boonville by say
ing, alter quoting this plank:
In accordance with the history and ira
di,ions OF the democratic party we are OF
posed 10 anv legislation OIL matters oi mere
individual conscience, and are IN favor OF
the largest personal liberty consistent With
the pnblic liberty.
Il understand that plank I'm the platform
to mean that each individual democrat Il
at liberty 10 determine for himself what
his action shall be- upon the question al
prohibition now pending before the people
of Missouri and OF the western states. Al
Ter beralding forth this declaration al
Roouyiile. ne goes 10 work and makes
labored speech TO show that tie democratic
party is opposed 10 prohibition. And since
then he deems il his duty "a the apostle at
democracy Ia chide and even impugn the
motiy, of every one who sees nj 10 declare
that the majority OF the democratic party
are not orpC>e,l TO prohibition. lie knows
as we'll as 10 that the question was
rURPOsELY DoDGED
in the last state convention. Something,
nv the way. that never can he done again.
He knows that the resolution: Resolved,
That We regard the question OF temperance
as one belonging solely 90 the domain OF
morals. and any attempt 10 enforce 1t by
prohibitory legislation as subversive oil
the legitimate functions OF the govern
men,.' WAS voted down by the vote of yeas
81. pays Sd. What does he mean, there
fore. bv saving that the great democratic
party are opposed to prohibition? Does
the position of senator authorize him
70 draw upon the 'concentric circles OF
his imagination for such fact, and the
iurther startling information that :" not a
comfy in Missouri, not even Clinton, will
go for prohibition, but that 1t will De beat
en- by 100000 MATURITY" Verify, 1t Is
putting il mild to call his conduct simply
unreasonable. Do you see Senator Cockreil
SD expound the action of the democratic
convention? Not by long ways. Has
he been traversing the state and giving
forth as simon pure democracy that ex-
IRENE temperance measures are anti-demo-
cratic? He is Senator and has right to
sneak ex-cathedra as well as Mr.. Vest. But
he doesn't, and I'll lay wager that he
won't"
"You do not think that tine amendment
If submitted, would be showed under 10y
| lOO, 600 MAJORITY"
"No.I do not. The question has moi
really been discussed as it will be when il
is fairly presented. Many of the ablesi
4 n3mG
about it in this campaign, notwithstanding
| Mr.. Vests action in trying to force II as
political issue, and If he expects TO add
anything to his reputation as an crater, ol
make a reputation as statesman, think
er. a legislator, a lawyer, document, oil
ANALYTICAL chemist, he will have to get of
something better than that anti-prohibitior
Boonyille speech. Why, have you read il
II was unfortunate that the committee pub
Iished Georges speech in the same pam
phie, as Governor Andrews.
BORROWED THUNDER.
III Mr.. Vest deemed the question one il
issue. why did he not prepare sp, eel
with a view to some originality and adapt
ed 10 1882. instead of traversing The STATE
and here and there dressing up IN the cast
off 1867 coat ard breeches of John A. An
drew. of Massachusetts, Before Mr.. Vest
spoke had the pleasure Of reading TIM
professionally prepared speech Of John A
Andrew. of MASSACHUSETTS. 1t was issue'
and thrown over the state by the nrewin,
firm of Anthony 4 Kuhn. On comparing
the two efforts. Vests and Andrews, i an
constrained to the belief that the chemical
philosophical, historical, dietetic, eihnolog
zeal, and scientific arguments of our sena
tor are drawn largely, too largely from tn
professionally prepared argument oil MI
Andrew, of Massachusetts, Let me sho'
you: Here is the printed copy as sent on
by the Democratic Central Committee. Tb
learned exposition is showing alcohol to b
food, not poison. Leibig says he classic
. food into two cl asses.
al. Certain non-azotized substance:
etc.
"2. Certain nitrogenized substances
etc.
HE SAYS: Besides that and those sub
stances etc"
"Now turn to Mr.. Andrews argument
"Concisely stated, Liebig's two article
of iood are:
a. Certain non.azotized substance
etc.
"2. Certain niirogenized substance
etc.