Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1882-10-19
The Republicans and the Pr0hi
biti0n Question.

! The PrOhlDltlOn1Sts assert, In JUS
LITIGATION of their attempt to form a
new party, that the mission of the
Republican party ended with the
fall of slavery. They say it was or.
gained as an anti-slavery party, the
slavery question is settled, and there
is consequently no further reason
for maintaining the organization.
But only those who have an ex.
tremely superficial idea of the poll
tics of the country will accept this
argument as valid. It is founded
upon false assumption. From the
beginning the Republican party was
something more than a mere anti.
slavery party. From the beginning
the issue between the Republican
and the Democratic parties re ated
to the powers of the general gov
eminent and the limita ions between
State and National authority. The
Republicans held that the general
government had the power under
the Constitution to exclude slavery
from the Territories, and that it
should exercise it; the Democrats
asserted that such measure was a
violation of the rights of the States,
and that a citizen of any State was
entitled to take with him and hold in
a Territory any property, recognized
as such by his State, including slaves.
Thus from the first, the radical, ir-
reconcilable difference between the
parties related to the proper limits
of the National authority. That diff
ference has not arisen on the ques-
ton of slavery alone 1t dat back
to the foundation Of the Govern
ment. 1t has been raised in CON
nection with taxa N, Internal i'm
provements, the tariff and the cur
rency. When the rebellion broke
out, as a parry, the Democrats held
that it was unconstitutional to en-
ploy force to compel States to re-
main in the Union, while the Repub-
licans maintained that the United
States is nation with the right, as
such, Of defending its own existence
and If overthrowing by armed force
state governments which resisted its
authority. The same radical diff
ference of view has characterized
the two parties since and up to the
present time. 1t cropped out in the
recent discussion and votes upon
the Anti-Polygamy bill. The oppo
sion to that measure came from the
Democrats. Why, even the right of
the general government to levy n
special tax on whisky is disputed by
Democrats, and the tax condeVned
rs an Invasion of State rights.
If d majority of the people of this
State want a prohibitory amendment,
they can obtain il by electing mem
bers Of the Legislature who are fa-
vorable TO the measure. Voting for
Prohibition candidates for Congress.
for state and county officers, viii
avail nothing Nor is it in the
power of the legislature to submit
such an amendment until two sue
cesslve legislatures have agreed to it.
All talk, therefore, about submitting
the amendment and giving he peo-
pie chance to vote on it is idle
until the people show that there is a
real demand for it by the election
of two successive legislatures that
will approve it. Hence, we say that
every voter who reg rds prohibition
as u question of paramount import
ance may consistently cast his vote
for representatives to the legisla-
ture who share his opinion. If his
own party does not offer him such a
candidate, and he believes prohibi
ton more impor ant than any party
question likely to arise in the legis
lature, let him vote for some other
candidate, if he can find such one,
who does represent bis views on this
subject. We ask neither Republi
can, Prohibitianists or Republican
Anti-Prohibitionists who regard the
prohibition question of paramount
importance TO vote for members OF
the legislature who will misrepre-
sent them. But an honest, a con
sistent and an intelligent Republican
viii not throw away his vote upon
Prohibition candidate for Congress
or for any office the incumbent of
which will have nothing whatever
to do, in his official capacity, with
promoting prohibition. BY SO doing
he cannot promote the adoption of
prohibition, and can only aid in the
election of Democrats aud the tri-
umph Of political principles which
he believes to be mischievous aud
dangerous.
There is no Prohibition candidate
for Congress in this State-unleas
the Republican nominee IN the Sth
district, who has also been nominal.
ed by the Prohibitionists, be regard
ed as one-who has The remote,t
chance of an election Every vote,
however, cast for such candidates