Mexico weekly ledger. (Mexico, Mo.) 1855-1956, 1883-05-17

. e@Ss Os@sss w.
church congregation. My opinion
was at the time and still is, that this
was list of names gotten up for q
kind of directory of persons who
would be likely to appreciate the
temperance documents the prohibition
alliance were sending OUT
'sWhat did you do with the peti-
tions you deemed fraudulent?''
1--WE counted them just the same
as the others. making no distinction
whatever.
ssWhat about DR.. Brooks state
ment that at one time during the ses-
sion the house was decidedly in IA
vor of submission?''
SIN the early days of the session it
is barely possible that submission
might have or would have prevailed in
the house, but 1 don't believe it.
Right here let me say that would
like to see little more consistency
in the statements Of DIR. Brooks upon
this subject. In the early part Of the
session he stated privately to a prom
inent member of the house that after
being in attendance upon the session
and looking carefully over the field
he was satisfied that submission could
not be accomplished, while almost in
the same breath he announced pub
licly that submission was an assured
certainty. At another time he stated
publicly at Jefferson City that he was
well satisfied with the organization Of
both houses and make up of the va
rious committees, but Immediately ea
the close of the session he announced
in a public address to the prohibi-
tionists of the State that the COM
mittees were all made up in pursu-
ance of a preconcerted plan for its
sole object, the defeat of submission.
This statement 1 believe to be
untrue, for so far as l know the
question of prohibition did not enter
into the appointment of the commit
tees, at least l had no knowledge Of
the fact that been selected as chair
man of the committee on constitu-
tional amendments until the announce
ment was made by the speaker"
"What do you think of the man
ner in which the question Of submis-
sion was disposed Off"
81 think it would have been de-
cidedly unwise for the democratic
legislature to have submitted prohi-
bition amendment for the reasons
that it had been defeated at the fall
election in nearly every county where
1t was made an issue, and for the
further reason that the petitions in
favor of prohibition were so largely
| in the minority that submission OF
the question would clearly have been
an attempt to foist upon the people
something the majority do not desire.
In view of these facts, / think the
lquestion was disposed of in the best
possible manner
"What will become of prohibition
in the future?"
/ 81 think the question will continue
to be agitated during the next two
years, and will then come up
again in the next Legislature in the
same manner that it did in the last
but Just what the result of this agita
ton will be can only be conjectured
If the prohibition people will depost
Brooks and put some one at the heas
of the movement who will not knocl
all plans over as sooa as arranged
strong organization can be effected
. But the anti-prohibitionists need no
t fear us long as Brooks leads tn
, movement. He is preacher with
out a congregation; politician with
, out party, and lobbyist and stumI
speaker with remarkably short mem
: ory."
!, "Where do you think the next figt
will be made?"
t ssIn the democratic State CONVEX
$ ton next year. The prohibitionis'
will make strong effort TO ineorpc
rate prohibition plank in the pla
form and If successful, the fight wi
= end there of the -prohibitionisi
h will abide by the action of the col
t vention without mugmur. If, how
Y ever, they capture the eonventio
h they will very probably inaugurate
h bolt and try to organize a new pa
ty."
Y "What effect would bolt of tii
kind have
i 81 don't think it would amount
anything, as don't believe that
| coalition could he effected beiwee
j. the prohibitionists and republican
: and I am very sure that the new pa
d ty would have very little democrat
d following"
: "What do yot think of the prohib
tionists' position on the high lieen'
e Iaw!''
e 81 think they are very inconsi
tent in their opposition 10 high
J. cense, as I, as well as almost ever
-e other anti-prohihitionist, regarded Il
1t passage of the Downing bill as a co
- cession TO them. and it would new
re have been passed had it not be'
for this understanding"
~ The following extract is taken fro
=. an editorial in the Globe-Democrat