The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-11-17
TWELVE PAGES.
THE INDIANAPOLIS JOURNAL
A PARTY FOR ALL MEN.

Ihh14 EO" MA
We published a day or two since a letter
IRON an esteemed friend, who, proclaiming
himself a Prohibitionist. asserts that he docs
not propose to be driven out of the Republic
an party" and he raises a note of warning
against the abuse" which is heaped upon
Prohibitionists by certain Republicans.
There has been a good deal said upon this
latter phase, and it is worth inquiring
whether there is any real foundation for the
charge that Prohibitionists are abused"
Surely no one with sense or discretion, or
who is entitled in any degree to speak for
the Republican party, wants to drive" any
body out of the organization, be he Prohibi-
zionist or anything else. The Republican
party desires all the voters it can secure, who
believe that upon the national lines of policy
on which the two parties are divided that
that party is more nearly right
than the other. The Republican party
does not ask, and will not ask, any man who
seeks to ally himself with it, or who is now
or who has ever been a member of the organ
ization, whether he believes in prohibition
or local option, or in license; whether he is
a total abstainer, whether he drinks whisky,
wine or beer; whether he is an anti-tobac-
conist, or whether he smokes and chews;
whether he eats a cup of oatmeal in the
morning for dyspepsia, or whether he has
an unbounded stomach which can digest
l. =. sfo- Lo-
tism, or in immersion; or what his views are
upon any OF a thousand and one things with
which political parties as at present consti-
tuted have nothing whatever to
do. The Republican party has
said certain things in its platform; it
has formulated a certain set of distinctive
principles. upon which it has asked the CO.
operation of ali men who believe in them.
Is it not very like driving out" to seek to
practice a confidence game on those who
become members of the party by the adop-
mon, but which is seriously and honestly
opposed by many, if not a majority OF its
membership, and an idea entirely foreign to
the purposes of the party and the legitimate
scope of its administrative work? There can
be little or no honest difference of opinion
upon the proposition that prohibition,
right or wrong i'll principle, is not a
partisan question:, as parties are now
divided, and cannot be made such by either
party without serious injury to both the
principle and the party. This is universally
recognized by all who can take two ideas into
their minds at once. 1t is distinctly recog-
nized by the Methodist ministers of the
Martinsville conference, in the resolutions
the Journal reprinted on Saturday last. No
r Prohibitionist wants Republican prohi-
bition or Democratic prohibition; the man
who advocates the one or the other is
amenable to the charge that he as not true
either as a Prohibitionist or as a partisan,
but is a selfish schemer, with motives no
higher than to float his personality upon a
possible Fictitious importance he may
secure by standing between two evenly
balanced opposites. This disposition is evil
denced in the attitude and statements of Mr..
Schumacher, the Prohibitions candidate for
Governor of Ohio, who vauntingly declared
that be had defeated the Republican party,
and that he would do it again until the party
adopted prohibition as a part of its political
faith. What sort of common sense or COM
mon decency is there in this attitude, when
Che Republican party Of Ohio had answered
Che prayer Of the Prohibitionists, and given
hem the opportunity of voting directly
npon a constitutional amendment? If
1t had not been for the Repub-
have whistled for the chance to vote;
vet when the party mad met their desires,
and was entitled by all canons of fair deal
ing to their earnest support, a faction of Pro-
hibitionists organize for separate action, and
their leader boasts that he and mis- followers
have defeated the party that took upon itself
the duty OF opening the ballot-box to them.
In Indiana the Republicans took the same
position as the party in Ohio. Here, in the
teeth of the opposition of the Democratic
party, the Republicans proposed to give the
people a chance to vote on a ~prohibitory
amendment. The taking of that position
cost the party many votes, which a decent
regard Tor fair dealing would have dictated
should be made up by those of the opposite
party, who affected to regard prohibition as
the ultimate of their desire. But, unless the
figures of the election are false, it does not