The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-07
Prohibition win Help the Party

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal;
Any fair-minded man would be pleased with
the spirit of your editorial of the 81 inst,
prohibition as a partisan help" whether he
agreed or dissented from your conclusions 1t is
fair candid, heightened and just such an article
would be expected from the Journal. The
journal is wise and broad-mnded enough to
know that men will differ, and it does not con-
denim a man who thinks for himself The dis
tinguishing excellence of the Republican party
is its freedom of speech, press and opinion.
You say-'it is not the ideal best-Dut the
practical best-that the real foundation of
popular government is the greatest good TO the
greatest number" No one would dispute such
a fundamental truth. Prohibtionists may be
idealists, but they sincerely believe that tenn
perance would insure 1.-THE greatest good to
the greatest number" They not to be CON
demned for wishing TO bring around "the
greatest good to the greatest number" and 1
do not understand you to so condemn, but with
the utmost charity you believe that more would
be lost by declaring for prohibition than in a
sincere effort to meet upon a common. practical
ground. Are you not an ideallst, to suppose
that any common ground exists on
which a moral question can be compromised
am not clear in my mind whether You or the
ProhbiUiOnists the greatest idealistS 1
grant that it is n perpeXing question whether
high license, local option or prohibition is the
best remedy for this present public Oplnion. The
main trouble is in the fact that temperance, like
slavery and pOlygamy, ls a moral question.
moral question, like BanquO's ghost, will not
down." The spirit of fair play, justice and,
above all, the moral sentiment of mankind, will
never slumber cease to call for action until
moral questions settled. We may act from
policy, tempOrize, evade, call men cranks, ideal
lists and fanatics, and assume that we are the only
sensible and practical men, but like that
troublesome ghost, these moral questions will
not down. The Wing and Democratic parties
solved that the question of slavery should not
be discussed. They muzzled the press. declared
in all their platforms that there should be no ag
itatOn, and put padlocks on the lips of public
speakers; but the spirit of liberty burned In the
hearts of men until III arose in majesty and freed
the slaves by war. just 80 public opinion,
which is omnipOtent, is now fermentlng, and,
sooner or LATER Will find volcanic expression on
this moral question. 1t Will probably shalter the
Republican before it does the Democratic party,
the moral sentiment and love of liberty and
Justice are stronger in the Republican masses
than in the Democratic party. This revolution,
unlike that of slavery, will be by the ballot, and
not caPtridge-box.
/ will not be presumptuOus enough to say that
now, or in 1884 will be the ripe time for the is
sue but the discomfort is growing at the apathy
and dilatOriness of both parties. In the
beautiful city of Richmond learn that an Or
ganizatiOn exists among the Quakers to vote
the Republican ticket no more, until it takes at
vance ground on temperance; The Quakers
pioneers in liberty, and are the same in
temperance You say: "No man is wise friend
of real temperance reform who would make a
bitter opposition OF Ell, her one of the two great
parties against his theory" Most men Will agree
with you there, but that is just what Wings and
Democrats said about AbohtlOnists, The Wing
party died twenty five years ago The Demo
Gratis have been out of power at Washington so
long that the statute of limitations bars their
claim They made faces at the AbolitiOnists-
called them One-idea men and fanatics. Time
and events indicated the Aboitionists You
may live to your mistake. II temperance
was not moral question you would be right.
The Democratic party in many quarters have
champiOued what is understood to be free
whisky, and the element OF Intemperance i'll its
full, active and bitterest shape is fighting the
Republicans the very thing you fear and de-
plOre and would guard against. The brusers.
saloonists, retailers, whisky rings and drinking
men are organized political party against
the Republicans, and we, out of fear of losing
more men, drive the PrOhibitionists from us.
and gain 10 recruits from ProhibiliOnists or tenn
peraEce Democrats, what will be the result
Your argument about Kansas and IOwa's vote
is predicated upon the idea, as you say you "are
examining the vote, simply upon the cold, crit
zeal ground of bat le-cry in Ohio and Indiana"
Your figures and argument appear to support
your theory that 1t would not work well III Ohio
aud Indiana ask you to remember that st. John
was running for a third term as Governor, and the
hereditary hatred TO third term would defeat
any man. and there were local causes to cut
down the Republican vote i'll Iowa. The Reuub-
can vote has p habit of falling away in the off
year and coming to time during the presidential
campaign. Take the Garfield vote and Institute
such comparison aud argument rs you did
with Iowa aud Kansas, and you would prove the