Springfield globe-republic. (Springfield, Ohio) 1884-1887, 1885-09-21
PARTY PROHIBITION.
SOUND Avn PRACTICA VIEWs or
PROMINENT MINIs1ER.

Let Temperance People Listen TO Reason
sound judgment and Truth as IL i-
Rather Than to Demaeogues ana Fn.
natios who Have "IssI without wis.
| DOM"
| From Morning Editionl
Rev. j. u. Carson, ID. d., OF Xenia, is pas-
tor OF the Second United Presby terian church
and president Of the United Presby terian
Theological Seminary of that city. He is
nomination, and, as the following from his
pen on the prohibition question indicates, is
well endowed with good practical sense:
The issue Of the prohibition party at pres
ent is not so much with either or both of the
other political parties az it is with the prohi-
oitoniss In the other parties. This is par.
ticularly true in the state Of Ohio. In 1888
there were 323, 900 votes for the second or
prohibitory amendment. OF these perhaps
100000 were cast by democrats, ard over
100000 by republicans, with say $4,000 or
10000 party prohibi,ionists. The 800, 900
are jusj as much entitled to be regarded and
called prohlbitionists as those VIII voted the
prohibition ticket that year.
The question between the latter and the
former then and now is not one of principle
but simply of policy. Ga the question of
principle they are agreed and so declared by
their vote. The difference between them ia
as to the best m ethoi OF securing prohibition.
In the judgment OF the 300, 900 this can be
best attained by non partisan action--that is,
combining all OF both parties who favor pro-
hibition in their efforts on nom partisan
basis. The prohibition party, embracing
less than one-tenth OF the prohbi-
tionists OF the state, deem it n.ces-
sary to organize party on that distinct
issue. Which of these is right must be de-
termined by reason and experience. There
ought not to be any reflection on the honesty
OF either side by the other. To say that all
those who do not see their way clear to join
the party and vote its ticket are therefore op-
posed to prohibition, and in favor of reguls-
ton or license and taxation as distinguished
from prohi1ilou, is not fair or Just. Because
In the state of Ohio, at least the question
is not between prohibition and regula-
ton or license, as it was in 1882 for if il
were the 100000 would be found now as
then voting in favor OF the second rather
than the first amendment. The real ques-
ton now, and until prohibition be attained
is between free whisky and restriction or
taxation. Neither prohibition nor license
can at present be brought into the issue, un.
til another amendment is submitted. And
between free traffic in liquor, rs it now ex-
lists in this state, and taxation or restrictive
legislation, nine-tenths Of the prohibl-
tiOnists are in favor OF the latter. They
regard the organization OF the third party
and its action as unwise and inexpedient cal
culated, even though not designed, to help
maintain and perpetua,e the present order of
things, and TO postpone indefinitely, if not de-
feat finally, constitutional prohibition in the
future.
In view OF the fact that all prohibition
amendments and legislation have hitherto
zen secured either by non-partisan
action, as in Maine and largely 10 the
south, or by party action other than the
prohibition party, it cannot be said that the
Judgment OF those prohibi'ionists who oppose
and depreca,e the third party movement is
without good or sufficient ground or reason
To say that We are false to our convictions,
or choosing between two moral evils" in
striving to obtain the best legislation posi-
BILE under the circumstances, until we can OBJ
tain prohibition, Is neither true nor candid.
] G CARSON