Mexico weekly ledger., 1882-08-24
OPEN LETTERFROM JNO.A BROOKS,
Pesident of the Missouri Prohibition Al.
lance, to the Mexico Ledger.
To the Editor Of the LEDGER:

sAS ~"
but the fact that l am president of the
state alliance, ought to assure you and
the public that l correctly represent
the sentiment of the great body of
prohibitionists in Missouri. / am
glad, then, to welcome the LEDGER
into the almost universal ranks of
democratic papers which are willing
to submit this question to the popu-
lar vote. This is the only way to
keep the question out of politics, and
will certainly do so if the democratic
party will see to it that their repre-
sentatives maintain this time honored
principle of the grand old party. Yon
admit that the amendment we propose
would be constitutional, but ask the
question ''why is there a constitution
al amendment insisted upon?" l an
swer, first, because a simple statute
is not permanent, and is liable to be
changed at any time by a venal legis-
lature. The money in the traffic will
never permit it's friends to sleep, and
every Legislature will attempt its re-
peal. To this fact is due the repeal
of nearly all prohibition statutes. We
want to make the fight once for all.
Second, this will take it permanently
out of politics. After a year Or two
of trial, as you will see in Kansas and
Iowa, all parties will acquiess. Both
parties, as they now do in Maine, will
recognize the fact that it is a fixture,
and cease the attempt to make polit-
ical capital out of the question. The
struggle lasted in Main. for many
years; in vain efforts to repeal the
law, and now, to avoid this struggle
We propose a constitutional amend
ment.
You seem to object to our seeking
any pledges upon this question at dem
ocratic hands; you say that ii
will put candidates in such
positions that they cannot
follow such further instructions
as the party nominating them may see
fit to formulate. You seem not te
have a proper conception of our OBJ.
ject in asking these candidates to de.
fine their position on the questions OF
submission. How are we to vote in.
diligently until we know the position
of these gentlemen? We, in this, arr
simply following the brewers. They
will vote for nc man, they tell US, whit
favors submission. How, then, arr
We to protect ourselves, unless we al
so become a power in the coming con
test. and how are we to do this unless
like them, we combine? The brewer.
demanded IN anti-prshibition planl
at Jefferson City. We make no sucl
demand, but in harmony with demo
cratic usage, ask that it be submitted
to the people. Now which has beef
unreasonable, the brewers or lis
Why do you not pitch into these''im.
patient and fanatical" brewers anc
give them fits?
Again, is it not democratic usag,
to ask candidates to define themselve.
on any leading question before tn
people when desired? Were not sucl
questions addressed to Rev. Pop,
Yeaman during his recent candidacy
Was not this very question as t,
whether he was a prohi bitionist asked
him, and did not the fact that he was
cause the st. Louis delegation to TO r
sake him in a body? Mr.. Yeamal
did not hesitate to answer either tn
questions relative to normal school
or this question. 1t is democratic
then, to seek such expression at tn
hands of candidates.
You ask why, if l approve of tn
democratic platform, am 1 not salts
fed? l am with the platform, blu
want to know if my candidate approve
it, and hence, ask him to define him
self. I thank you for your interes
in my standing as a democrat, ant
answer that just as long as the demo
cratic party stands upon right ant
honor, Extending the greatest per
sonal liberty consistent with pabli
good" you can count me in, bu
should it ally itself with the creates
enemy of the public good, the whisk,
traffic, and continue the power in tn
hands of a few men, to destroy th
public peace and welfare in order t
enrich themselves, you can count my
self and thousands Of democrats il
Missouri out of such wicked and un
patriotic organi zation. But 1 hav
an abiding faith that the democratic
party in Missouri will never do this
Their action at Jefferson City settle
this question. When you, in com
mon with a few others, intimate tina
our object is to regulate the icon
science" by law, you greatly misrep
resent US On that question, also
we stand on the platform. We ar
attempting to regulate no mans con
science, but simply to prohibit sucl
action and business upon the part o
citizens, as is incompatible with tn
public good" This the democrats o
Missouri have often done, and in har
mony with such action, reafirmed tn
principle at Jefferson City.
From the standp0int Of the nlafforu