Dodge City times. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1876-1892, 1884-05-22

that the Kansas State Temperance Union
is al danger OF being turned into po-
litical machine by cunning political wire
pullers, and brought to the support Of
some particular candidate, and this meet
ing has been pointed out as the first of a
series of efforts in this direction Let me
say with reference to this insinuation,
that no sensitive gentleman in the in
terests of his own candidate need have
any fears about this matter. Neither the
State Temperance Union, nor the Shaw
nee County Union, az such, have taken
any action on the question of candidates.
The officers and members Of the Union
will probably differ in opinion as to the
candidates to be supported by them, and
the right of individual judgment in such
matters will be conceded by ALL A man
is rot necessarily deprived OF his right as
citizen to exercise his own Judgment
Oil these questions, because he becomes a
member, or an officer of the Union. We
have no political bosses in the Union,
and we have no need of any. But as
Temperance Republicans We will have
something to say as to what men we will
support for Office in this State, and in
making up our minds on this question
We will be guided by few general prin;
ciples which l desire to state. There are
two propositions to which the Republi!
can party of this State stands committed
by very decided action.
1st. To the prohibition of the traffic in
intoxicating liquors as beverage, as q
settled policy of government.
I'd. Against the re-submission of the
question of Constitutional prohibition to
the people of this State.
The first proposition is embodied in
the following plank of the platform Of
the Republican party of 1882:
"Resolued, That we declare ourselves
unqualifiedly in favor of the prohibition
of the manufacture and sale of intoxi-
eating liquors as beverage, and pledge
ourselves to such additional legislation az
will secure the rigid enforcement of the
constitutional provision upon the SUBJ
ject In all parts of the State"
1t is well-known that this proposition
was adopted by the Republican conven-
ton of 1882 by very large majority.
There are many party tenets that are To-
cal. They relate to and affect local polit-
ical situetions; but they are none the less
party tenets because Of this. This posi-
ton has been taken by the Republican
party of the State, and it is our business
to see that the party stands by it. 1t is
our business to see that men are selected
for places of trust and honor in this
State who are friendly to this PROPOSE
ton, and who will in good faith uphold
and sustain it. The next State conven-
ton must be composed Of men who will
retain this plank in the Republican
platform of this year without shrinking
from or evading it in the slightest degree
and we must see to it that the men are
sent to the State convention who will
carry out our will in this matter. We
may differ upon men but we are a unit
upon this proposition. The Republican
party is just as fully committed against
re-submissirn, by party action in the
last Legislature, as if it was in the party
platform. The question of re-submission
of the policy of constitutional prohibit
ton to the people of Kansas came before
the Legislature of 1883 in manner and
form as follows: Early in the session,
TO- wit, on the 10th day Of January, 1888,
Senator Everest, a Democrat from Atch.
ison county, introduced Senate Joint Res
olution No. 2, section one, of which reads
as follows:
"The following proposition to amend
the Constitution of the State of Kansas
shall be submitted to the electors of the
State for adoption or rejection at the gen.
eral election to be held on the Tuesday
succeeding the first Monday of Novem-
Der, 1884. Proposition Article Is shall
be amended by striking out section 10
thereof, which reads as follows: Section
10. The manufacture and sale of intoxi.
eating liquors shall be forever prohibited
tific and mechanical purposes" This
section contained the whole proposition,
section two provided for the manner of
the submission. and section three when
it should take effect. On the 28th day
of February, after much discussion Of
this proposition, it was rejected in the
Senate by vote of fourteen for to
twenty-five against, one Senator not
voting. 1t required two-thirds vote in
its favor to become law; it received
few over one-third. In the House,
Mr.. McCleverty, of Fort Scott, Dem
ocrst, introduced the same PROPOSE
ton on the 18th day of January,
1883. This was known as House Joint
Resolution No. l. After much dis
custom test vote was reached on this
resolution on recommendation from the
Committee of the Whole to reject it,
which recommendation was adopted by
vote of 65 to 81 against, nine members not
voting. This vote was taken February
14th, 1883. In the entire Legislature the
vote stood as follows: For resubnission,
IS; against, 80; not voting, 10. Total, 165.
Every Democrat in the Legislature, with
one exception, voted for resubmission,
and few Republicans voted with them.
The vote recorded against it is with
single exception a solid Republican vote.
Are there any greater reasons for resub-