The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1883-10-24
The Result In Ohio.

The Indianapolis correspondent of the New
York Times, writing after the Ohio election,
says: The result in Ohio and the figure cut
In the election by the ultra-prohbitionists have
had the effect to develop decided feeling
among the republican political managers and
press OF this state that the temperance question
in the phase 1t has assumed for the past few
years, both in this state and in Ohio, must be
dropped from party politics, il success is to be
expected. The identity Of the contest In Ohio
with that waged in the state last year is almost
complete. In 1880 the temperance people came
before the republicans here and asked the
opportunity to vote upon prohibition amend
ment against the almost solid opposition of the
democracy. The republican legislature pro-
posed such constitutional amendment in
1882 an amendment having to be agreed to by
two successive general assemblies. The tenn
perance people came before the conventions of
the two parties with the same request, that the
opportunity OF a vote be accorded them The
democratic convention slapped them full in the
lace by the passage OF a resolution pledging
the party to oppose prohibition at every stage
while Mr.. English, the chairman Of the state
committee and the president of the convention,
made carefully prepared speech in which he
delivered over the democracy to the liquor in
terests bodily. On the contrary, the republic
can convention, in plain, unequivocal resolu-
ton, declared the right of the people to vote on
the question, and upon that issue went into
the campaign. While there was no prohibition
hibitionists could not be detached from their
party allegiance except possibly so far as the
legislative ticket was concerned, and the res ult
was the defeat of the republican party, the pro-
hibitionists doing little or nothing to help it,
except those prohibitionists who were and are
republicans, and who felt that their party had
taken the proper stand and all they could ask of
it. In Ohio the republicans granted the prohi-
bitionists what they asked, an opportunity to
vote and there the prohibitionists openly, and
as 1t appears, successfully, exerted themselves
to defeat the party which had proved itself at
least courteous and fair to their demands In
politics wherever a cheek is slapped it is scarce
ly to be expected that the other will be turned
also, and 80 it is very natural that from one
end OF the state to the other the Ohio election
has precipitated very bitter criticism of the
and demand that the
next campaign be not complicated with issues
outside of national republicansm. The temper
aUce council at its session last month resolved
that the prohibitionists would again ask the
parties next year for a vote on constitutional
amendment OF course the democracy will do
as they did before, and in the existing temper
the republican party is likely to reply with 81
lence, or with an assertion for some further
practical restrictions and regulations and taxa
ton. This may result in a third party, and the
prohibitonsts say the republicans cannot sue
coed without them, but as they have never sue
ceeded with them it will only be an even thing
at the worst"