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

true principles OF democracy were
were those which favored the mainte-
favored the adoption of the minority.
He did not believe in the majority re-
port, for that advocated, in reality,
A LICENSE SYSTEM.
That meant saloons. He did not
favor anything which savored ofWhisky.
He believed in Democracy, right or
wrong. and pledged himself to abide by
the decision of the convention Whetev-
er it might be. The speech throughout
was strangely inconsistent one and one
such as only Van Bennett could de-
liver. He opened out by denunciation
OF saloons and wound up by declaring
that he would abide by the decision OF
the convention when he knew that ii
would carry the report which favored
the license system. He pronounced in
defer to any decision the convention
might arrive at, when it was very APP
parent that this decision would be con-
trolled absolutely by the anti-prohibI-
tory element which SO largely predomi-
mated.
Mr.. Hnrris, of Bourbon, made
FIERCE SPEECH
denunciatory of prohibition, st. John
and the Republican party generally
He denounced the prohibitory amend
ment as fraud and farce, yet declared
it would look bad if the party should
advocate the license system. He did
not believe in prohibition because it does
not prohibit.
Mr.. Emory, of Douglas, said he favor.
ed the minority report, and he thought
three-fourths of the convention were
with him. The representatives of the
five large cities of the state were in favor
OF the majority report, but those dele
gates from the country were not with
them. He wanted the
WHISKY SALOONS CLOSED UP,
and wanted no distilled liquors sold.
He was in favor of licensing WINE and
beer, but the saloons should be closed.
He believed John Walruff should be al
lowed to make his beer and sell it. Why
did the majority of the committee on
ment resubmitted? Itwas because they
wanted it beaten, wasn't it?
Col. Moonlight said that was the idea.
Mr.. Emory said this was a voice from
Leavenworth. Laughter. But the con-
vention should not take action simply
to cater to local sentiment. He was q
professional Democrat. He had learned
something in his life. The saloons must
go.
Mr.. George was in favor of just and
equitable laws; opposed 10 all sumptu-
airy laws; the Democracy was at al
times in favor of the enforcement of the
laws upon the statute books.
E. n. Clarke, of Mcpherson, was
IN FAVOR OF MODERATION.
1t would not do to place the Democracy
of the state upon the side of the saloons.
Geo. w. Brown, of Crawford county,
was about of the same opinion.
Mr.. Hamilton, of Douglas. spoke in
favor of the adoption of the minority re-
port. He quoted Tilden as declaring
prohibition to be moral and not in any
way political question. It should not
be drawn into politics. A large part of
his address was devoted to a denuncia-
| tion of the protective tariff.
Mr.. King, of Labette, moved the pre-.
| vious question.
The chairman of the convention ruled
the gentleman out of order.
A motion to suspend the rules was
| voted down.
Mr.. Becker, of Marshall, was opposed
to the saloons. Prohibition was forced
| upon us, and he was III favor of license
| system. Well regulated saloons should
be maintained, but holes in the wall he
was opposed to.
Mr.. Click, of Atchison, opposed the
minority report because it was
TOO VERBOSE.
The question of prohibition was now in
the politics of Kansas and the Democrat
ic nominee for governor must meet il
everywhere he goes upon the stump. He
charged that prohibition had made one
hundred saloons where there was bu
one before and taught the boys to disre
| gard the law. Prohibition closed the
front doors of the saloons and opened the
back doors, but it didn't prohibit the sale
of liquor at all. Hedenounced the pro
hibitorY law in all its surroundings and
and characterized it as criminal. HI
| charged that it violated the code of pro
cedure in criminal cases and denied the
criminal the justice to which he wa!
entitled.
Gen. Rogers. of Greenwood, was o.
the opinion that the discussion had
GONE FAR ENOUGH.
He wished to say, however, that he die
not favor that portion of the minority
report which endorsed Garfield and
Arthur, and would vote against the re
! port on that account
| Mr.. S. NJ. Phillips, of Reno, denounc
ed the prohibitory amendment as in
iquitous.
Col. Moonlight, chairman of the com
mittee on resolutions, was satisfied from
the discussion that there was an issue
in the Democratic party of Kansas, and
that issue was prohibition. He was in
favor of an out and out stand upon the
prohibition question, and declared 10
| favor of
STRAIGHT ANTI PROHIBITION PLANK.
The convention as representing the De
moncracy of the state could afford to dc
nothing else. He believed that the
Democrats, on an anti prohibition plat
form, could carry the state in November
| provided the convention nominated, OIL
such platform, man like John Mar
tin. He was very bitter against prohi
bition, and declared that it was q system
of slavery which had been forced upon
the people of the state by the Republican
party. The minority report goes from the
days of Ishmael on the plains
down to Arab Pasha- 1t didn't mean
anything in particular. There is too much
in it, and not enough in it. The people
wanted to vote again on this question
He denied that the majority were Cd
posed to John Martin as had beer
printed. Moonlight's was a mastery one
| for his side.
Mr.. Riggs again took the floor in ad
vocacy of the minority. report. He called
attention to the fact that the minority
report had been misrepresented by the
majority speakers; the minority report
was strongly and plainly against prohi
| bition.
Mr.. Fenlon took the minority report
and pointed out what he considered q
vital defect. 1t was that part which
deprecated the prohibitory law and
characterized it as unjust, and vet call.
ing for its enforcement He asked how
many of the four hundred members Of
the convention would sit on juries and
convict men for selling liquor. He die
not believe in the enforcement of what
| he believed TO be
| AN UNJUST LAW
now any more than he did the enforce
meet of the fugitive slave law twenty.
one years ago.
The vote was then taken upon the
question of substituting the minority
report for that of the majority, and the
vote by counties was as follows:
No. Yes