The Indianapolis journal., 1885-09-01


while it continues to exist in spite of our eff
forts to destroy it. Indeed you so affirm by
saying as you often do, that the outrageous
business should be made to pay the bills it
creates. But then you preach to us about the
iniquity of 1egalizing' the traffic by license
and tell us that by it the public becomes a
partner in the business that license is the
'bribe' on taxpayers; that it is kind of
hush money to an indignant and outraged
people; that it is the price of blood, and all
that Terrible is the indictment which you
read against the license system. Now we do
not want to discuss the question at all; we
will not even stop to defend our doctrine that
the permission Of the traffic, in which the
great sin of the public consists, does not origi-
nate in license; but what we want to ask is
this: Are you, or are you not in favor of the
free, that is unlicensed, or untaxed, sale of
whisky until such time as we can put a stop
to the traffic by the enactment and enforce
ment of prohibitory laws9 If you are, say so,
brethren, and then we shall know how to join
issue with you, if we choose to do so at ALL"
This is directly to the point. 1t hits be-
tween the eyes those fanatical men, who, if
they cannot secure prohibition at once, openly
declare in favor Of free whisky. There are
SUCH DIR. Leonard has publicly proclaimed
that to be his position, as have men like DR..
r. T. Brown, Of this city. This is the atti-
tude of those men, who, claiming to be tenn
perance men par excellence, so act and vote as
to put into power the Democratic free whisky
alliance.
A leading Methodist minister Of Ohio has
written letter, in which he says:
II am full of anxiety lest disaster come to
our church in this temperance agitation DR..
Leonards candidacy is think, a blunder, and
but for pure intentions, a crime. Instead of
the spirit of the genuine church going into
politics, the spirit of politics is going into the
church. and thus dividing the only moral
power that can secure the final triumph of
the cause Of temperance. Preachers are going
wild-alenating from their best influence
that thoughtful, conservative, but thorough
temperance element of our church without
whose aid victory can come neither to church
nor state on temperance lines.
'Our conference meets next week, and I
hold my breath. l am not looking at things
as Republican, but as a minister, who de-
slres the highest success for the church, be-
lieving that in that success is involved the
highest good of the state"
But, in conclusion, and as, perhaps, more
influential than all else, we quote somewhat
lengthy extract from letter written to the
Chicago Inter Ocean by Rev. Bishop S. M.
Merrill, one of the honored bishops of the
Methodist Church. The Bishop has been a
Prohibitionist for forty years. Not only
Methodists, but temperance men Of all classes
&c e,.4 III &c I IL III
consider the words of this beloved Bishop
He says:
constitutional provisions should never be
made the basis of party organizations The
organic law of the State and the Nation ought
to have the support of patriotic citizens in all
parties. The only way to secure this end is
to avoid thrusting party platforms into the
Constitution. Prohibition of the liquor traffic
cannot be permanent till it is in the Constitu-
ton, and it cannot 90 into the Constitution as
party measure. 1t is too broad for party.
Like the fundamental principles of the gov
ernment, it must be the common ground of
the better classes in all parties; like the COM
mon-school SYSTEM it touches interests too
vital to the common veal to be made the foot
ball of politicians Parties divide on inter
pretations of the Constitution, not on the
Constitution itself. interpretations form
policies, and party issues relate to policies.
This is the Legitimate battle ground of politics.
But there is realm of principle beyond the
conflicts of parties, where the moral character
of the government rests upon the foundation
of right-where the enduring elements of
Christian civilization crystalline in organic
law-and to that broader realm of essential
right this question of prohibition must come
Another serious objection to the party
feature is that it renders it inexpedient and
improper for the churches to take the active
part in the advocacy Of the cause that is de
sirable. When the party is organized, with
candidates in the field, the conferences
synods, associations and conventions of the
churches cannot and will not give indorse-
ment to the measures proposed They are
excluded by the nature of their constitutions
and must stand aloof, as ecclesiastical bodies,
whatever individuals in their communions
may think or desire. 1t also silences the pull
pit to very great extent. Ministers who re-
gard the sacredness of their calling will not
turn their pulpits into electionasring ros-
trums. They cannot do it in good conscience,
nor ought they to be expected to do it. While
prohibition stands upon it's merits as uues-
ton Of essential right, affecting individuals,
families, society and the public welfare, with
no party machinery attached, it is open for
free discussion in pulpits, churches, confer
ences and synods, where the whole power Of
the moral sentiments Of these agencies may
be brought to its support; but the act of mar
rowing it down to a political party contest
cuts off all these, or requires them to 90 out of
their sphere, and risk division, and strife, and
the loss of much of their influence in the en-
deavor to do in an undesirable way what they
would do heartily in the absence Of the party
entanglements.
'1t is also in accordance with precedent to
expect that as soon as the party gains little
standing, so as to promise to hold the bal
ance of power it will be overrun by class of
men whose influence will not add to its repu-
tation or moral standing. Dsgruntled poll
ticians of every grade will drop into it. Am
bilious office-seekers will rush for the leader
ship. Modest men of moral worth will find
themselves overborne by the clamorous zeal