The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1884-02-29
DEMooRATIo PROHIBITION


prohibition movement, one phase of which, at
least, has been placed in charge of d
drunkard and dead-beat in the employ of the
Democratic managers, has begun to show
itself in South Bend. A call is published, or
2 rather pledge, signed by number of gen
tlemen, the main part of which is that the
signers will not support or vote for either II
party or candidate not distinctly and avowedly
in favor of prohibition. The right of any
cannot be questioned; the prOpriety and effect
of his action upon the cause he hopes to ad-
vance may be matter of serious doubt with
those equally as sincere and earnest as him
self, while the motives of some who are en-
gagged in organizing the movement are proper
ly within the criticism and contempt of those
who are able to put two and two together and
conclude that the result is four We appre-
bend that when a Republican temperance man
is approached by such fellow as Luther Ben
son, who is engaged in the missionary work of
developing third party movement nominal
question the honesty of a man who,
during the last campaign, ''stumped" the State
in the service and pay Of the Democratic
party, party which sold itself to the liquor
dealers league, and which, through its chief
speakers openly and blasphemously placed the
Saviour of men at the head of liquor makers
and sellers. Very certainly, when such a man
comes bearing in his hands the scheme of a
new party organization, which is to advance
the cause of Temperance reform faster than
it can be done through existing machinery,
any temperance Republican at least, to say
nothing Of a Temperance Democrat, may well
question the honesty and efficacy of the nos
trum and its vender. When Mr. Charles L.
Murray, Democrat and editor of a temper
ance paper, reputable gentleman that he is,
and, as we believe, sincere in his temperance
principles, talks with temperance Republicans
about not voting with any party that will not
distinctly avow itself in favor of prohibition,
the query will naturally arise how Mr.. Muir
ray was able to vote with the Democratic
party in the last campaign, when it not only
was not distinctly in favor of prohibition, but
was distinctly and Extensively opposed to it,
and the temperance Republican will naturally
discount the zeal which now desires to pledge
him, in the year of an important national
election, to course which Mr.. Murray
could not and did not bind himself
to two years ago, when very much less Of
paramount Importance to the people, in their
national capacity. was at stake than now. In
furthernce of this Democratic thilql-part
scheme, read this editorial paragraph from the
columns of the South Bend Times:
"In another column will be found list of
seventy three Names constituting persons who
signed the new Prohibition party pledge last
week Judging from the nature OF. the pledge,
we should naturally suppose that a Prohibition
ticket would be put in the field at the spring
election. But, dare say, the new party
will not have the courage to take the field.
Still we shall see what we shall see. We UNI
lerstand there is another list of names to the
same pledge now in the hands of the Hon.
Charles j.. Murray, of the Sun. In case
Brother Murray will be kind enough to furnish
us the additional list, we will lay it before the
public with great pleasure
This is what Mr.. Squeers would call rich:
ness. The South Bend Times is owned and
edited by Hon. John B. Stoll Imagine Mr.
Stoll's devoted interest in prohibitions! 1t was
Mr.. Stoll who was the author of the questions
to leading Democratic politicians, which ques-
tions, together with their answers, were printed
by the thousand in the early spring of 1882,
scattered all over the State, and which inaugu-