The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-06
Hon. Will Cnlnback.

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal;
read with some surprise communication in
the Journal OF Oct. 81 from my esteemed friend,
Col. Will Cumback, declaring in substance that
the Republican party must adopt prohibition.
Now, 1t cannot do this aud live, and it will have
to decline the invitation which he kindly
tenders to it. His object seems to be to get the
party to take down its sign and cease to do bust
ness at the old stand, My friend says he is
"charter member" and, of course, he knows the
party came into existence because the then ex-
listing parties were not true to liberty, and were
opposed to human rights. 1t has retained
power for twenty-four years because it has
adhered with fidelity to the purpose of it's or
ganization. 1t was not organized to interfere
with any lawful business carried OF under the
authority of the State Legislatures Had the
"charter members" given notice at that time,
as my friend now proposes, that so soon as the
party attained power it would take prOhibi-
btion how many Interviewing Germans would
have cast their lot with it? Would the liberal
Democrats have gone with It'll The answer must
be obviOus they would not.
My surprise is increased when I reflect that
we are soon to enter on canvass for the presi-
dency, and the federal government has nothing
whatever to do with the question of prohibition,
the States having exclusive control of all such
questions. The Republican party, as "a national
organization, should confine itself to the Ques-
tiOns which arise under the general government.
Individual members of the party may have their
own views on moral questions, and freely express
ence felt through the State Legislature, hut it
has not been customary to bring such questions
forward in a national contest.
The examples which my friend cites-Kansas
and Iowa-to sustain his position are
unfortunate. In these States the
Republican party hitched on ,prohi-
biJion, and nearly sustained defeat.
There we're in these States three Republican
voters to one Democrat. and the party was
barely saved from slaughter. On the same issue
there is no doubt the Democratic majority In
Indiana would be $4,000 I'VE are told how
ever. that Democrats VIII flock TO our standard,
if we come out boldly for prohibition, and sup
ply the places of all those who leave" It is
amazing, in the light of our own experience,
cratic party has educated its members to oppose
all sumptuary laws, and they adj
here strictly to their instruction.
1t is safe to say that not one per cent, of
while we should surely lose 10 per cent. OF our
votes.
But suppose the party should adopt my friends
views and take on prohibition, and after a
six years. struggle in amending the constitution
OF the State, pass a prohlbltory law. The
practical question then comes up, the
law he enfOrceda We have led the horse to the
water; can we make him drink2 The law might
be enforced among the order-loving people
in the country aud villages, but would cities
the size of Greensburg pay any attention TO
ltF He knows that in the larger cities
of the State it would not be enforced. The
suit would be that the country would be-
come tired of q law which was not enforced by
the cities, and 1t would become dead letter.
This seems to be about the condition of the law
in Kansas.
No one can deplore more than I do the evils re-
shifting from Intoxicating liquors, but while men
are born with the appetite for StimulantS, they
will find the means to crafty it. 1t seems to me
there is but one thing left for us to do, which is
to burden the traffic with such tax will, in
some degree, compensate the public for the loss
1t susta1ns. NJ. L. BUNDY.
NEW CASTLE, Nov 5.