The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-04-24
LETTERS FROM TIE PEOPLE.
The Situation Reviewed by Another Veteran


observer
TO the Editor Of the indianapolis journal:
Under the head of Temperance and Politics."
of 21st inst, notice some special pleadings on
the dangers of making prohibition question of
partisan political action" and on ''what an inn
practicable minority are capable of accomplish
ing"
This review has an honest purpose on its face,
but is not to my mind, exhaustive of the sub
ject The gravest subject of all, the author
failed to touch upon. On some points he is evil
IDENTIFY mistaken. In order to discover the true
issue, it is necessary to make brief review of
history We may then discover that our interests
are many sided and mistakes are dangerous.
At the General Assembly of 1881, memorials
came to that body so definite, emphatic, and in
numbers so great in favor of a prohibitory
amendment to the Constitution of the State, that
both leading political parties were con-
WINGED that the demand was too signif-
cant to disregard, and by joint action
formulated and put on the journals Of both
Houses the following proposed amendment, sub
ject to the approval of the next Legislature and
Of the voters of the State at large.
See. l. The manufacture, sale or keepingf sale,
in said State, sprtuous vnous, malt liquors, or any
other Intoxicating liquors. except for medical scien
t6c mechanical and wines for sacramental purposes,
shall be and is hereby forever prohibited in the State
of Indiana
SEQ 3 The General Assembly of the State of
Indiana shall provide by law in what manner, by
whom, and in what places such liquors shall be
ufactured or sold for medical scientific mechanical
and sacramental purposes"
At the last General Assembly there was found
clerical error in the records made of this pro
posed amendment. In the Senate bare majority
vote on this preteXt denied the right of the PEG
pie to vote on the amendment. In the House a
ms in re- favor RlendInp
the numerical strength of both par
ties the voice of the people through
their representatives was in favor of popular
vote by the electors of the State on this question
Both parties had conceded this right in their
platforms The people of the State had chosen
their representatives in the Legislature, ma
jority of whom voted for the submission. Does
it not logically follow that it takes majority of
the people to elect majority of representatives?
Both parties voted for it; therefore does it not
logically follow that it was an ''impracticable
minority" that voted against the measure, and
by doing so distinctly showed what an imprac-
ticable minority are capable of doing!
Now when the heaviest taxes imposed upon
US year by year are for liquor and TO pay for
the pauperism and crime it induces, when our
government lends to liquor dealers $7S, 900, 900
year by year without interest, to assist them
in their work. when the Liquor Leage
sets itself up as the menacer and manipula-
tor of political parties. and the adviser and man
ager of our legislation-when 227, 900 men re-
become the most capable of executing evil pur-
poses of any instrumentality in our nation
when Intoxicating drinks cost double the eX-
pense of food, and are increasing above the in
crease of population at the rate of l per cent,
thus doubling their evils every ten years, and
costing us vastly more than our entire system
of public schools; when the evils of intUXicat-
ing drinks is alarming almost every European
nation well as our own, if we consider there
is danger of making prohibition a question of
partisan political action, let us put it on
higher ground and consider it an emancipation
essential to true liberty and the demand of the
people; that it involves questions of national
life or ruin.
But the true issue is not the one presented by
the review" above noticed The great question
to be settled by the Republican party is whether,
having enunciated the right of the people to ex-
press, by their ballots their will concerning con
stitutional law, and the proposed amendment of
1881 having failed by clerical error, and by the
Senate of 1888 the will of the people was set
aside, and the purpose of the Liquor League
served, are we now to acquiesce in this unrepub-
iean and undemocratic action, and silently leave
the people of the State out in the coldl Or shall
we rally to their rights to be heard, and assert
ours government of the people and for the peo-
pie, whether we are in favor privately of prohi-
bition or mott
1t is the duty of parties to voice the wishes
and good of the people. How can tell
whether Prohibitionists are majority or a mi
nority until they votel Their cause, as we
have shown, indicated a majority in
favor of the amendment in 1881 and in 1888 Has
there been any evidence of abatement of interest
sincel Has there not been a clear proof all over
the State that they consider their rights and
privileges have been unfairly and unjustly set
aside, and that they will not surrender until they
can do it honorably, by the ballot, according to
law. This is the question at issue, and the life
of any political party will be short that dsre
CARDS it.
There are questions in the progress of nations
which rise above Others and when they come
upon us it is not WISE through timid, fancied
expediency, to ignore them The history of par
ties is that when they fall behind the times prog
ress truth moral as well as political reform,
will originate new combinations to sustain their
claims. Parties are created, not for convenience,
but for the accomplishment of great ana essential
purposes B. G. HOBBS.
RIOoMINGDAJF Ind