St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1885-10-09
The ForaKer-FsoadIy Debate.

TOLEDO, o., Oct S.-Ihe joint debate
between Coy. Hoadly and judge Foraker,
Democratic and Republican candidates, re-
spectiyely. for governor Of the state at the
election next Tuesday, drew an enormous
audience to Wheeler'S opera house tonight.
The building will seat 1,7G0. The doors
opened at 7:3O. and in ten minutes every
seat and all available standing room was
occupied while on the stairs and in the
street below were crowds clamoring for ad
mission. The stage was provided with 224
seats, divided equally between the two
committees, for which tickets were issued,
which were occupied by prominent leaders
Of both parties. The remainder of the
house was free. There was wild scram-
BILE for admission as soon as the doors
opened. \ small table in front marked
the center line of the stage, al 10 the right
and left of this We're other tables, with two
chairs to each, occupied by the two
speakers and chamen. Judge John II.
Doyle was chairman of the meeting on the
part OF the Republicans, and Representa-
tive Frank Hurd otticlated for the Demo-
cratS. The speakers time was divided as
follows: Gov. Hoadly opened with one
hour, Judge Foraker occupied one hour
and half, and IIoadly TO close with
half hour. Judge Doyle called the meeting
resentative Hurd Immediately arose and
introduced Gov. UOadly in a few words,
and the latter gentleman began his speech
amid enthusiastic DlauditS from the enOr-
nous audience. He began by reciting the
circumstances leading to the challenge to
Joint debate. The most important issue of
the campaign is the question of personal
liberty and how far it should be interfered
with by law, as to the habit of drinking;
then he proceeded to define the position of
both parties. He defined the plank in the
Republican platform recognizing the right
of the people
TO AMEND TIE ORGANIC LAW
of the state to mean that the Republicans
favor prohibit0ry amendment.
He argued that point was, how far the law
may go to regulate the personal habits of
citizens OF the state. The answer TO it de-
pended on the answer TO the other questions
lis drinking vice? Is it harmful or wrong
TO take one glass OF beer or wine? Is a man to
be allowed to indulge in moderate drinking
which can do him no harn?' If drinking
liquor is q vice, selling liquor is a vice. But
if Il man is capable of Self-contro who takes
drink and does no harm. then he does no
harm to drink il in a saloon. He referred to
the local option feature Of the Scott law or
prohibition in spots, which differs
from total prohibition as the coach
color. He anathemized the Scott law f,,r this
feature and defined himself opposed to par
tial prohibition or total prohibition and in
favor of personal freedom to the full extent.
The speaker elaborated on the point that
ii there was wrong in one place, drinking
was wrong in all. IL it was right in one place
it was right in all. The principle that would
Justify the Scott laws and the local option
feature, would Justify the prohibition of
chewing or smoking tobacco within the
municipality. The conclusion was that the
legislation must be directed against the evils
Of liquor drinking. but not against drinking
itself This was the right direction of tenn
perance legislation within the cities or with
out them. The most valuable possession of a
citizen IS his personal liberty, therefore all
movements which strike at this must be op-
posed. Drinking is not vice.
BUT EXCESSIVE DRINKING Is.
Prohibition is a failure in Maine, Kansas and
Iowa. and statistics of the number of United
States licenses issued in these states were
read, showing an increase in two of the three
He pronounced prohibition an incentive to
hypocrisy, and was agaiustit, root and branch.
He challenged Foraker TO state whether he
was in favor of local prohibition in municipal
ities, and not in favor of prohibition for the
whole state. He is in favor the Scott law:
the ninth section gives municipalities the
power to prohibit. How can he justify this
and not Justify state prohibition? The speaker
compared Foraker to Il sandwich man, with
the pacard in front, Not For Prohibition
and on the back placardod, Not Against Pro
hibition, and challenged him to state whether
he is in favor of prohibition or opposed to it.
He insisted that prohibition is the issue in
Ohio for the next legislature VIII be asked to
pass prohibition legislation. He desired TO know
if Foraker was elected governor whether he
would, i'll his message, recommend the sub
mission of Il prohibitory amendment to the
state constitution, and demanded also to
know whether, if the Republican supreme
court is elected, it will reverse the late decis-
Son that the Scott law is unconstitutional and
compel saloon keepers to pay back the taxes
and charged that this IS the Republican pro-
gram. He declared taxation a revenue power
and not police power, as the Scott law made
it. That law proved failure, as police
measure, because more United States liceus
were issued the year it was in force than in