The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-04-29
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
The LIQUOR Question.


No intelligent man, the saloon-keeper not ex
cepted, even pretends to question the fact that
imtemperance is a great evil If an evil,
then no man can be conscientiously opposed to
any proper and lawful measures instituted for
the purpose of suppressing or curtailing it. The
direct tendency of prohibition is to prohibit the
traffic, and suppress the evils of intemperance.
This fact is SO nearly self-evident that no one
will deny it, except those who have a purpose in
denying it.
Every man engaged, either in the manufact-
ure or sale of intoxicants, directly admits the
fact by his violence and persistent opposition to
every movement pointing in the direction of
either statutory or constitutional prohibition.
These men are not such consummate
fools as to throw themselves, with
all of their moral and moneyed
influence, in the way of prohibition, knowing
that it will neither prohibit or seriously embar-
rass their business, and in favor of license,
knowing that it will be much more restrictive in
its administration. Such supposition is too
grossly absurd to merit a moments considera-
ton. 1t is fiat contradiction Of terms for a
man to say that thing is evil end only evil in
itself, and then claim to be consciously opposed
to just law, the only purpose of which is to
suppress that evil. Who will pretend to say that
law, the only purpose of which is to suppress
a blghting evil is not just lava Many are OPP
posed to prohibition but not from a conscious
conviction that it is wrong-that is impossible,
for reasons have given. Many are in favor of
prohibition, and they are so from a conscientious
conviction that it is right since the
great evil And now, if the
strict adherence of the policy men, in the Repub-
llcan party, to their theory of mono ommittal on
the temperance question, shall lead to separate
political organization on the part of temperance
men, will the policy men who adhere to their
theory for policys sake be less censurable for
the results, whatever they NAV be, than the pro-
hibitonists who adhere to their position for con-
science sake? The ''old, prominent and distin-
guished Republican" whose letter is published in
your issue of the 21st, says: '"That achieved,
you would be left to the reflection that YOU had
aided in turning over both the nation and the
State to those who will infict innumerable evils
upon both, merely for the sake of showing that
it is within the power of a small, impracticable
minority to punish a majority for disagreeing
with it upon a question about which good
men have, differed since society was or
ganized.H Here is the direct charge that the
thousands of prohibitionists i'll the State are
men without honor principle or conscience
political action ''merely for the sake of showing
that it is within the power of small, imprac
ticable minority to punish a majority for dis
agreeing with it So far from being left to
such reflections, as above stated, this small
impracticabe minority" would be left to the re-
Election that it had, for conscious sake, stood
firmly by principle in which were involved
questions of the gravest possible economic and
political Importance. But is it not rather re
markable that a man who has labored for fifty
years given line in the interests of temper
ance without ever seeing the least beneficial
suits from his labors, should denounce those
who entertain different view, and who are
laboring a different line. and who claim
to be constantly realizing desirable results
from their efforts as ian impractcable minor
ity." The class of writers and politicians quoted
are constantly referring to those who will not
vote with the Republican party if 1t directly an
tagonizeS in its platform the arrogant spirit and
demands of the liquor league as being driven
from the party; but of that class of citizens
known as prohibitonists. as being unreasonable,
fanatical and impracticable when they talk about
not supporting it if it remains non-committal on
this important question. Those who leave be-
cause the party antagonizes the most prolific
source of vice, crime and pauperism in existence
are spoken of very kindly indeed; while those
who talk of leaving because the party will not
put itself squarely on platform of positive
opposition to the demand of this organized hos
tility to sobriety. good order, the home, and the
law, that it shall be permitted to dictate the
State, as malcontents and unreasonable fanatics
All of this talk about delay and great
harm coming to the temperance cause, as the re-
suit of unfaltering fidelity to principle and con-
science is perfect nonsense, unsustained by one
single reliable fact. Such fidelity, and that
alone. is worthy of such success; and such fdel-
ity, and that alone, leads to success. Policy may
secure party in power, but it never leads to
better manhood better government, or the tri :
umph of a principle AS loyal citizens we can
policy a
party with the hope of securing, as an,
ultimate result, the triumph of principle, for it
viii never be done. No true man. no genuinely
loyal citizen can possibly afford to abandon his
principles or stife his conscience for the sake
of securing party success. Democratic success
has been hoisted on pole as a scare-crow in the
Republican garden quite long enough-the peo-
pie will refuse to scare any more-and they will
still insist upon it that if separate political action
an party will be wholly responsible for the
fact l.. c. BUCKLES.
GREENcAsTLE. Ind. April "a