The Jackson standard. [volume] (Jackson C.H., Ohio) 1847-1888, 1884-08-07
A ProhibitiOnist Talks Sense.

|
A Prohibitionist Talks Sense.
BANNER, O., August 2, 1884.
| To the Editors of the Standards
| noticed in last weeks Standard
| that my name is used in connection
with committee at the Prohibition
Convention. This was done without
my permission, and | cannot act in
that capacity. Not because [ do not
believe in Prohibition principles, for |
am Prohibitionist from the ground
up, and would hail to see the day
when this internal traffic, Of the man
ufacture, sale, and use Of intoxicating
drinks shall be banished from the fair
fame of our glorious country. Now
I have right to my opinion, as well
as other Prohibitionists. | believe the
nsssrest way to prohibition is through
the Republican rrerty. The voters
rank and file, of the Republican :s,,crtv, 't,
are intelligent, independent, thinking
men, and the majority Of them are
Prohibitionists in principle, and when
they demand in tones Of thunder Of
the Republican party prohibition
measures to be adopted in the Repub-
lican platform, the leaders are bound
to respect their demands. They can
not be trampled on and crushed down
|
like the voters Of the Democratic par
ty. To my mind, the time is not
far distant in the future, probably not
farther than 1888, when the leaders
of the Republican party will be glad
to insert in their platform a prohibi-
tion plank, prohibiting the manufac-
ture, sale and us Of Intoxicating
drinks as beverage. Now, I have
not word to say against John P. ST..
John. He is good man, and has
done great deal Of good in the tenn
perance cause. But we have two no
BILE men to head the ticket in the Re-
publican party. James G.. Blaine as a
statesman has no peer in this nation
or any other. He lives in a Prohibi-
ton State, and believes in enforcing
Prohibition laws, and how much more
could John P. St. John, or any other
| Prohibitionist, do for us as a temper
ance loving people? 1t certainly
would be bad policy to vote for John
P. st. John, or any other good man,
when we know we cannot elect him,
and thereby increase the chances to de-
feat James G.. Blaine and John A. Lo-
gan, two noble men, and placing in
power Grover Cleveland, man that
has no record as statesman, a man
that is living in adultery with prosti-
tutes, and raising up illegitimate chill
dren around him, man who disre-
CARDS the laws Of his country, and
breaking the laws every day he lives
1t would be a disgrace and a burning
shame to place such a man at the
head Of this great Government of ours.
Thomas A Hendricks has a record, to
be sure, but he is no more worthy Of
the high position of the Vice Presi-
dency than Grover Cleveland. He
has the worst record of almost any
man in the Democratic party, and
that is saying a great deal. During
the late war, he opposed every war
measure that was passed by Congress
to put down this wicked Democratic
rebellion. He was a supporter of
slavery as long as it existed. He vot-
ed to repeal the Missouri Compromise,
in order that slavery might be extend
ed in the Northern States and Terri
tories. While a member of the Con-
stitutional Convention of Indiana, he
favored law to prevent free negroes
from settling in that State. While
in the Senate, Mr.. Hendricks voted
uniformly against the colored race,
against emancipation in the District
of Columbia, against the right of col
ored people to ride in street cars,
against their employment as soldiers,
and against their right to testify in
courts Of justice. He opposed the
Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments to the Constitution. He
opposed the repeal Of the Fugitive
Slave Law, and denounced the Eman-
cipation Proclamation as revolutiona-
ry in it's character. Now I might go
ON and relate scores more of the infa-
nous acts of Thomas A. Hendricks,
what he has both said and done dur
ing and since the war. But enough
has been said to show where Thomas
A. Hendricks has been standing. And
who ever heard of Thomas A. Hen
bricks getting religion, becoming re-
generated, repenting Of his past sins,
acknowledging that he said and did
wrong, and was sorry for it, and was
willing to take it all back. | answer,
no one. Then must we not come to
the conclusion that under similar cir