The Waco daily examiner. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 187?-1888, 1885-10-09
HOADLY'S HIT I!
prohibition In Spots" Is
His Happy Definition Of
Local Option.
The Two Candidates In Ohio
Have n square john Discus
sion and a Big Crowd,
Aud It's Like They Had Read
Cokc's Views ON Prohibition
aud Personal Liberty.
Foraker Doesn't Even 'sDodge"
Much Less Argue SvelI, nut
Tuesday will Teli.


HOADLY AND FORAKER.
A Joint Debate Between Them NJ
Toledo.
TOLEDO, October S.-The joint de-
bate between Governor Hoadly and
Judge Foraker, democratic and re-
publican candidates respectively at
next Tuesdays election, drew an en-
ormous audience to Whceler's opera
house tonight. The building will
seat 100, and In ten minutes every
seat and one standing room was occu.
pied, while on the streets crowds
were clamoring for admission. The
stage was provided with 22i seats d.
vided equally between the two COM
miitees, for which tickets We're issued,
aud which were occupied by the
prominent leaders of both parties.
The remainder of the house was free,
hence the wild scramble for admi--
sion as soon as the doors were open
ed. A small table sitting In
front marked the centre line Of the
stage and to the right and left OF
this, respectively, were other tables,
Two chairs TO each, occupied by the
two speakers aud the chairmen.
Judge John II. Doyle was chairman
of the meeting on the part of the re-
publicans aud Frank Hurd for the
democrats.
The time of the speakers was di-
vidcd as follows: Governor Hoadiy
opened with onc.hour, Judge Foraker
then occupied one hour and a hall
hour; Hoadly to close with half hour
Judge Doyle called the meeting to
order and announced the programme
whereupOn Representative Hurd
arose aud introduced Governor
IIoadly in few words aud the latter
began his speech amid enthusiastic
plaudits from the tremendous audi.
ence. He began by reciting the cir
cumstances leading to the challenge
to joint debate: He said the most
important issue of the campaign Wal
the question of personal liberty aud
how far II was intcrfered with by
laws In reference to the habits Of
drinking. He then proceeded to dc
fine the positions of the parties on thu
liquor question rs shown in the
platforms of each. He de
fined the plank in the republi
can platform, recognizing the RICH
of the people to amend an organic Law
of the state, to mean that the republi
caus favor prohibitory amendments
arguing that they have no right Il
rest rain personal habits.
The answer to 1t, he said, depended
on an answer to the other question
as drinking vice 2" ais 1t harmful
or wrong TO take one glass OF beer o
wine 2" ais man TO be allowed T.
indulge In moderate drinking, whic
can do him no harm ?" II drinking
| be vice, selling liquor is vice. Blu
If man, who is capable of self-con
troll, who takes drink on his farr
and docs no harm, then he does II
harm to drink IL in saloon"
lie referred to tho local-opiion fet
ture of the Scott law or "prohibitio
in spots" which differs decided
from a dog of all one color. lie al
atheInatized the Scott law for tn
feature and defined himself as OF
posed TO partial prohibition or tot
prohibition and In favor OF person
freedom to the furtberest extent, II
speaker elaborated the point that If
= was wrong in one place, drinkir
) was wrong in all; fright IN one pla
IL was right in all. The principle tn
would qualify the Scott law local-o
ton feature would qualify the prol
bition of chewing or making tobao.
o within the municipality. III
conclusion was that legislation mu
2 be directed against the evils
liquor drinking, but not again
drinking itself. All movemeI
which strike at the personal hber
OF the citizen must be oppose
Drinking is not vice, but excessi
drinking Is. Prohibition is failu
in Maize, Kansas aud Iowa, for
shown by statistics OF tho number
United States liquor licenses, liqu
J ia sold in these states, the tigul
showing an increase in two of
three. lie pronounced prohibit
an incentive to hypocricy and q
- he was against II root aud bran
He challenged Foraker to stale "
, he is in favor of local prohibition
municipalities, and not in favor
prohibition 10 the whole state. ="
"a in favor of the Scott law,
I ninth section OF which gives mt
. cipalities power 10 prohibit, how
he justify this and not justify 81
prohibition lie compared Fara
10 a "sandwich" man with a plac
In front, mot for prohibition" aud
his back q placard, mot against I
hibition," and challenged him
state whether no was in
yor of prohibition or
posed to it. lie insisted
prohibition Is au issue in Q
because the next legislature will
asked 10 pass prohibition legislat
He demanded TO know whether
raker, If elected governor, will In
message recommend the submis
of prohibitio constitute
* amendment. lie demanded also
U know whether, If republican
ID. preme court is elected, II will rev
u: The late decision that the Scott
q Ia unconstitutional and compel sal
a. keepers to pay tho back taxes.
~: charged that this Is the republ
IA programme. He declared that I
~ were but two methods of settling
temperance question, viz ; Pro-
ton and license, aud the Scott law
but a bastard kind OF license.
declared that he favored Q gr
license, measured according
the amount of sales. "Licen
he said, protects the
retains the liberty OF the pc
brushes out the low dives aud SCI
obedience to the law by DEALERS
declared houses of i'll fame woul
be licensed to sell liquor rs the,
under the Scott law.
The speaker quoted Senator
man az saying that the legislaipl
80. Qbia,eaa.iu iGeaaaeu sbsssp3irlae|