The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-12-26


To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
That was nail in sure place which the
Journal drove soon after the success of prohibi
ton in Atlanta, in calling attention to the fact
that the result had been reached, not only with
out the aid of third party, but in spite of one.
In Georgia, as in Maine, prohibition was OBJ
tanned through the Democratic party, because
the people demanded it; yet notwithstanding
this, there were 49, persons who persisted IN vot-
ing for ST. John at the recent presidential cleo
ton. Just why they did must be q mystery to
themselves unless they belong to that class of
fanatics who must have just what they want,
have anything at all Prohibition came in
Georgia through local option, a step at time.
The latest victory was siege and storm;
nevertheless, Atlanta was taken. And now re-
mains to be determined the most important
question Of all Can prohibition be enforced I'M
der local option law any easier than under
general law? am inclined to think it can in
such city as Atlanta. Every man who voted for
it will feel bound to see that the law is respected
1t is madness to ignore the existence of this issue
in current politics to be blind to the factor de-
veloped. The issue is upon US and will remain
under more abject bondage or the people become
the acknowledged master of the traffic The
traffic not only shakes its fists at the people and
says that we had better not pass such and such
laws, for it never will obey them, but it abso
lutely defes the present law Of Indiana,
although it is word for word as they dictated it
ten years ago, showing a growing arrogance
which is justly alarming. On the other hand,
there is no mistaking the growing unrest Of the
people as they feel the cords tightening which
n ic 6ray
affecting them in their moral, social and political
interests Although the forces do not divide on
party lines, yet IN its national platform and in
all Northern platforms the Democratic party has
expressed its sympathy with the traffic.
TO me it seems that the following lessons are
taught by the history OF this struggle up to date
First, there is no hope of prohibition through a
third party. In Kansas the first Western prohibi
ton State. there were attempts to organize local
prohibition party in 1874. 1875, 1876 and 1877.
but in no year did they get more than 2,277
votes. In 1878 the Republicans nominated St.
John, leading prohibitionist, for Governor and
put prohibition in their platform, and carried
the State by the largest plurality ever given up
to that date at an off-year election and the third
party disappeared at once except that a few,
like the 1874 in Georgia, persist in playing third
party for fun or from sheer cussedness
In Iowa the third-rarty movement never had
vitality enough TO attract attention until the
people, failing TO get either political party to
adopt prohibition, in 1877, put local ticket in
the field, which received 10, 693 votes. almost
without an organization, and SO detractng from
the Republican vote as to leave that party, for
the only time in its history in a minority of the
whole vote, its minority being 2674 At the
next election. and from that DAY to this, the
Republican party has been the advocate of pro-
hibition, and has had clear majority of all the
votes at every election; on some occasions
madness and practical fool hardness
for which can find no apology that at the late
election ! ,4e5 men, like the stubborn lS4 in
Georgia, chose to cast their votes against the
Republican party when it was fighting the bat
tie OF prohibition with such carnestness in its
platform, in its speeches, and by its mon and it's
press against a fusion of all liquordom, except
in three counties, in which, though heretofore
Republican, it was badly defeated. Yet in spite
Of this madness Of these men the net Republican
majority over all was three times greater this
year than it was in 1883. But a vote of |, 405 in
an aggregate vote of 345, 729 is too insignificant
to love or hate, though in a close contest it
might prove fatal. But there is lesson from
another direction which no wise man will neg
lect, be he prohibitionist anti In AL political
calculation OF the future the fact of the antagon
ism of the people against the domination and
arrogance of the liquor traffic must be taken
pto the count. This antagonism has come to
stay until it is crushed out by the absolute dom-
nation OF the liquor power, or until the people
assert their supremacy and the liquor power
acknowledges and obeys it. This forebodes n
struggle for ages. unless some great upheaval
puts one side or the other to the rout, ard it is
not wise to shut our eyes to the fact. In Ohio
this year. both old parties chose to antagonize
the sentiment of Prohibitionists. The result
was that the Republican vote fell 40 54i short of
Blaine's vote. or 10 per cent, and the Demo
cratic vote fell short of Clevelands 26, 900, or
per cent, while the Prohibition vote gained
1924 on st. Johns. or 10 per cent. and more
than three and half times the vote of 1883.
Almost identical with this is the lesson from
New York. There. as in Ohio, both old parties
antagonized prohibition. The result shows
Republican loss of 72,27s. or loss of 13 per