Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-11-10
SOME OF TIE LESSONS OF THE OHIO
ELECTION.

There are some interesting suggestions in
The figures of the Ohio returns regarding
the temperance vote. The votes cast for
the prohibition amendment were 1913, lS9,
and it failed by 1885, the total
vote being 72l, $40. 1t is asserted,
however, that these 1913. lS9 voters
were not all temperance devotees,
nor did they all desire prohibition estab-
lished in the Constitution, but voted for it
believing that it would not be adopted.
What large proportion of these voters re-
ally desired, say the Ohio critics aad the
Commercial. Gazette, was to rebuke the
agressiveness of those who had for over
thirty years enjoyed practically free trade
IN liquor" This is certainly an odd anal
ysis of voters intentions. 1t seems scarcely
probable that men would vote for the adop-
ton into the Constitution of a prohibitory
measure without sincerely desiring the re-
suit the vote on its face asked for. The
Gazette, however adheres to the theory
stated, and declares that the prohibition
lists make a mistake if they believe nearly
half the voting population OF the State are
in favor OF trying an experiment that
great many more than half the voting pop
ulation honestly think impracticable, and
that would, if undertaken, lead to demon
alization rather than reform"
Assuming that the explanation given of
the vote is correct, it certainly is ex.
pressive of the sentiment of so large
body of citizens, that the opponents of
liquor reeulative measures dare not ignore
It. If, as is alleged, in Ohio the liquor
interest has forced the issue in its greed to
control the politics of the State, it has now
received rebuke that, if it is wise, will
be needed. That interest has always op-
Grated mainly through the Democratic
party; in that organization it finds con.
genial domicile 1t follows, therefore, that
the Prohibition vote is q slap in the face of
the Democracy. 1t mas been the pleasure
Of some temperance commentators on the
situation in Ohio to construe the temper
ance vote as antagonistic in purpose to the
Republican party-a rebuke to that party
because It did not secure to the temperance
element all It demanded, and subordinate
its political principles to the temperance
policy So far as we can ascertain, from
critical examination OF the matter, there is
no tenable basis for such aposition. Temper
ance advocates, outside of Ohio especially,
are very ready to make that charge, and
preach it with fervor. If that was the
animus Of the temperance people if, as
their friends assert, they purposely Sc
cured the defeat Of the Republican party
by putting their own ticket in the field,
what does it prove? 1t establishes their
own folly IL testifes to their own eOnvic.
ton that the Republican party, as the
Dartv of intelligence and independence,
was the fittest to have control it evi-
dences their own belief, that in the
Democratic party their cause had neither
hope nor support. They therefore
punished the element from which they had
most to hope, in order to whip it into sub.
ssrviency to their dictation. The result
has been then, as they desired, the triumph
Of the Democracy. They will have but
themselves to blame if there follows the
rspea! of all that the Republican party has
given them. The Democracy is under no
obligation to the temperance element; its
aid in the recent election was unsolicited,
and was given with the clear understand
log that the Democracy always has been,
and will continue to be, hostile to prohibi.
lion, to regulation of the liquor traffic, and
GO any legislation that tends to make the
4s-Or interest bear its fair share Of the