St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1884-10-23
st. John viii MOI Withdraw.
THE REASONS HE GIVES FOR DECLIN-
ING TO Do so.

vass rs the prohibition nominee for the
presidency, together with an elaborate
| statement of reasons why, in your
| opinion, | should take this course.
Permit me to reply, that | have given
yOu statement and request such care
| full and candid consideration as, COM
ing from men of your high character,
they merit and that | can neither
agree with the one nor comply with
the other. In justice to myself, and
| courtesy to you, must refer, speciti-
cally, to some OF the leading reasons
which you urge. Bear with me while
| do this i'll the briefest possible way.
First-GOu desire prohibition sub
mitted to the people separate from
other issues and distinct from party
politics." | desired the republicans
party, at its national convention, to
favor such submission the same de-
sire was expressed through petition by
hundreds of thousands of others and
| our very modest wish was there de-
MED. Believing prohibition a national
need, to blot ont national cause, we
could not certainly ask, and the re-
publican party could not with fair.4ess
grant, any less. Refusing that slight
est possible recognition. the party
could not longer have the slightest
possible claim upon my vote. Because
Second-The policy of national pro-
hibition ''has been clearly defined and
approved by the great body of the
friends of the cause in the United
States ;" more clearly defined and
more generally approved by these
than was il national policy concerning
slavery, when that had common recog
milton as Il national issue, and arrayed
parties i'll open contest. This national
policy may be summed up in one
phrase-national sovereignty over the
liquor traffic to suppress it, instead of
to legalize, and protect, and perpet-
uate it.
Third-Out of the widespread APP
proval which this policy had attained.
and because of it, came the convention
ut Pittsburg, with its more than 600
delegates, representing 81 states, and,
us believe, more representative of
''the great body of prohibitionists
throughout the country" than any
other body ever assembled. 1t was a
convention regularly called, with an
unusual interim for temperance peo-
Pile to consider it and to plan for it.
Its delegates were citizens of represen-
tative character, many of whom had
recently been active workers in, OF
sympathizers with, one or other of the
old parties. They went there under IL
plain call to nominate presidential
ticket, and for no other reason; and
your assertion that ga large part of
that convention opposed placing II
ticket in the field" has never been
made, to my knowledge, is not justi
fed by the detailed report of proceed
ings printed in leading journals at the
time, and is emphatically contradicted
by reliable witnesses, delegates and
spectators, who sat in the convention
and are familiar with all that was
there done and said. On your third
point, therefore, you surely have been
misinformed as to facts.
FOURTH see nothing more cOnfus-
ing i'll the prohibition movement than
in any other-unless you mean that it
is confusing the politicians. Had pro-
hibitiOn alone been referred to in the
platform you might have objected to it
as an "one-idean party. Woman suf-
frage it delegates to the several states,
and in condemning the policy of both
the old parties with regard to the
Chinese it but speaks in the old repub-
lican spirit the old republican doctrine
which that party, in its greed to catch
and keep the vote of the Pacific states,
now repudiates. AS to imputations
upon the republican candidates find
only such as appeal to facts and that
appeal you can make as well. They
should serve every occasion of truth.
Fifth believe the questions con-
sidered in the prohibition platform
were as carefully considered, and as
authOritatively adopted as any that
have this year been presented to the
American people; and | am satisfied
that they embOdy i'll a higher degree,
and far more comprehensively, the
well being and prosperity of our
country than do those which have
recognition in both the democratic and
republican platforms.
Sixth-"It is true" you say, 1.-THE re-
publican party declined to make pro
hibtion an issue in its platform" The
party was not asked to make prohibit
ton an issue. For the principle it was
not requested to declare. 1t was
llt1eiN dShtu 10 ldNOG tut
question to the people. If for it to
have done this, as you assert, "would
have been political suicide" then see
no hope or possibility of the republi-
can party ever granting even so slight
II concession to temperance men, and
am amazed that you should urge my
longer loyalty to that party.
Seventh and Eighth-If that party
which you call the "party of fair play"
and of majority rule" cannot now ra-
tionally declare in favor of both, with
out political suicide, what hope have
we that in any state it will long favor
either, or that as national body it
will ever support the national policy
for which | stand, and in behalf of
which the national prohibition party
has declared UncOmpromising hos
| tility to that policy cannot so surely
and fatally delay It's success as can
covert enmity, cloaked in friendly
| disguise.
! Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh-You are
not republicans, | may assume, simply
because yon expect to elect yOur tick
ct. We cannot forego being prOhibi-
| tionists, merely because we have no
sure promise of at once electing ours.
And while it may be unreasonable, as
you insist, ''to favor change from
bad to worse, simply for change" it
is always reasonable to favor right,
and to stand by principle regardless OF
what change may be brought about as
a result. | have loved my country
well enough to carry a musket in its
defense, and to risk life in its service ;
| hold its obligations to every brave
defender, or to those now representing
| such, as forever sacred the national
credit, and the material resources OF
the nation, would not see impaired
and all that was gained for God and
humanity by years of war, | would