The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1884-10-31

language of the bill "in its economic,
criminal, moral, and scientific
aspects" The bill was passed, &C
Republicans and I Democrat voting
in favor, 20 Democrats and no Re-
publicans against. The bill then
went to the Democratic House where
no action was taken upon it.
A similar bill was passed by the
Senate, March II, 1879, a8 Republi-
cans and Democrat voting yea, 10
| Democrats not Republican voting
nay. Again the Democratic House
declined to take any action upon the
bill.
| On May I6, 1879, Mr.. Frye, from
the House Committee on Rules, re-
ported resolution to the effect that
a committee of nine members be ap.
pointed by the Speaker to consider
all petitions, memorials, etc., "touch.
ing the alcoholic traffic, commission
on the same, and amendments to the
constitution controlling its manufac-
ture and sale." Mr.. Fernando Wood
moved to table the resolution. The
motion failed by vote of 90 to I28,
OF the 90 votes in favor of tablng
the resolution, that is, killing it, o5
were cast by Democrats; of the Ia8
against tabling, that is, il favor OF the
resolution, Io3 were cast by the Re.
publicans and IS by Democrats. The
resolution was afterwards amended so
as to be perfectly harmless and was
agreed to, but of course, nothing
ever came of it.
Feb. g., 1882, Mr.. Joyce in the
House of Representatives moved to
suspend the rules so as to bring be-
fore the House another bill providing
for commission on the liquor traffic,
which he had introduced some time
before. 1t required two thirds vote
to suspend the rules, and the motion
was lost, the vote standing III yeas
to o8 nays. OF the II2 votes in fa-
vor Of the motion, los were cast by
Republicans; of the oS against it, %
were cast by Democrats. A similar
bill was introduced in the Senate,
January II, 1882 The Democrats,
under the lead of Mr.. Bayard, made
several attempts to strangle the bill,
but it was finally passed. 27 Republi-
cans and Democrats voting in fa-
vor, I3 Democrats and Republican
voting against. The bill went to the
House, where unanimous consent be-
ing required for its consideration and
the Democrats invariably objecting,
it "slept the sleep of death"
That is, in brief the history of all
the attempts at temperance legisla-
ton in Congress. IF we add the
votes on these bills and resolutions
we shall find the result as follows:
"LA faUOr Of temperance legislation,
200 Republicans and 30 Democrats;
0Rbosea TO temperance legislation, go
Democrats and 7 Republicans"
No words Of ours can add force to
these figures, yet we desire to add
that in favor of this temperance legis-
iion has been recorded the vote of
every Republican Senator and Rep
resentative, from Michigan, including
HON. ROSWELL G.. HORR. FL
nally, we have only to remind our
temperance friends that they must
choose between these two parties.
They will help to elect the candidates
State, National, Congressional, and
local, of one or the other Of these
parties. There is no way in which
10 avoid the responsibility of choos-
ing between them. If it was in the
range of possibilities to elect Mr..
St. John no one would expect or ask
Prohibitionist to vote for anyone
else; but no man lives who expects
he will receive a single electoral vote
and hence every man knows that the
choice lies between Mr.. BLAINE and
GROVER CLEVELAND. And as we
have already stated every voter must
and will contribute directly to the
triumph of one af these two parties.
This, then, is the direct, practical
question which confronts every tenn
perance Republican. Ought you by
casting your vote for Mr.. st. John,
to contribute TO the possible success
of that party, the Democratic, which
has uniformly opposed all temper
ance legislation in the several States
and in Congress. whose candidate
for President is himself an atnfembsy-
ate man and opposed to all temper
ance legislation, and whose candi-
date for Vice-President declares pro-
hibition wrong, and boldly proclams