The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1884-10-24

alton at glance ana proposed 10 JOIN
forces with this minority of republic
cans for tax law, as that would bring
about the repeal of the prohibitory law.
A DEMOCRAT IN THE HOUSE
drew tax bill, but the tax was placed
at so low figure that dealers In intox-
icants would have considered 1t huge
joke had 1t been placed on the statute
books. When prohibition republicans
found that tax law would certainly be
passed, then they turned in with the
other republican members TO make as
stringent tax and police law rs posi-
BILE. This was done, and the result or
the matter was that when it came to
the final vote OH the bill 90 republicans
and Is democrats voted yes, and IL re-
publicans and al democrats voted no.
On the police bill regulating the traffic
6S republicans and democrats voted
yes, and 3 republicans and 43 democrats
no. Jt is well known that the action OF
the democratic members in voting
against the stringent regulations inn
posed on the traffic was in conformity
to the demands of the liquor dealers of
the State. The prohibition republic
cans were driven into choosing between
STRINGENT TAX LAW AND FREE
WHISKY,
and they were forced into that corner
principally by the political prohibition
lists.
In that same year the political pro-
hibition party, now called union par
ty," under the lead of John Russell,
placed third party tickets in the field,
to draw of votes from well-known tenn
perance republicans and elect demo-
cratic members who were pledged to
the repeal of the prohibitory law.
The whisky democracy has labored
earnestly to stitle the voice of the peo-
pie on constitutional amendment, and
even with this damnable record John
Russell, Prof. Sam Dickie, Merritt
Moore, ID. z. Sagendorph IL Co. are
ready to put in practice the same de-
spicablc tactics in this contest, which
they have played in previous cam
paigns. The republican party is pledged
to favor the submission of prOhibi-
tory amendment. Nine-tenths of the
republican members, who will be elect
ed without doubt, will work and vote
for such amendment. Should political
prohibitionists pull together with re-
publicans there is every reason to be-
licve that
A TwO-TIIIRDS MAJORITY
could be secured. But what do these
gentlemen propose They tell their
followers to go ahead and nominate
candi dates for the legislature, knowing
full we'll that nine out Of every ten
votes which such candidates receive
must come from the republican can
didates pledged to the submission of
hibitory amendment. What Is the
practical result of such action? 1t
inures to the defeat of temperance re-
publicans, and places In power demo-
cratic members pledged to
OPPOSE ALL sUMPTUART LEGISLATION,
and who are under the control of the
whisky element of the state. If in any
district the prohibitionists had show
to elect their candidate then there
would be some consistency In such
action, but so long as they have not,
every vote cast for their legislative
candidate is direct vote against tenn
perance, and the submission of pro-
hibitory amendment. Stripped of all
verbiage the prohibition or union party
is practically
A DEMOCRATIC ANNEX.
In this connection the injudicious
acts, we might say treachery of politi-
cal prohibitionists may be shown by a
brief review of their action In connec-
tion with the pledge of the Kalamazoo
convention of 1882. 10 go back to the
spring of 1881 the republican party, in
state convention at Lansing, almost
unanimously placed itself ON record in
favor of the right of the people to vote
upon constitutional amendments. when
such privilege was asked for by re-
spectacle portion of the people. When,
a few days later, the vote i'm the legis-
lature was taken on the question of sub
mission it lacked one vote In the senate
and two i'm the house. Then came the
Kalamazoo convention of 1882, and the
republican party again placed itself on
record in favor of submission. At that
time it was generally understood that
the prohibition party ticket
WOULD BE WITHDRAWN
and every effort made to elect the re-
publican candidates. The next day at
Jackson the state temperance alliance
met, and voted to keep its third party
ticket in the field. Not one of them
was foolish enough to expect to see
prohibition candidate elected, and yet
they knew that such action would sure
ly take votes from republican candi-
dates which could have no other result
than to reduce the legislative majority
of that party by giving the election in
many districts to democratic candidates
who were known to belong to the
whisky element and opposed to submits
sion. No political prohibitionist can
deny that such action contributed 70
the defeat of the submission of pro-
hibitory amendment.
Now that the knife is raised to again
stab the temperance cause, we ask the
true friends of temperance to look at
the legislative record of 1888 and see
IL they are willing that political pro-
should go on with
THE WORK OF ASSASSINATION.
The Legislative Journal for that year
shows the following facts, which polit-
ical prohibitionists are continually
In the senate the vote
stood 90 yeas to IL nays, as follows:
Fifteen republicans, three greenbackers,
and two democrats voted yes; and four
four democrats, and three
greenbackers voted no. In other words.
FoUR-FIFTus OF TIE REPUBLICANS
81 .ho eooata fovora1 euhm ieeinn. two.