Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1885-09-03

THE Democratic managers of Ohio,
who, with the assistance Of one DR.
Leonard, an ambitious preacher, are en-
deavoring to drag the Methodist church
into politics, have not received much
encouragement from the great lights OF
Methodism throughout the country.
A few days ago at one of the Assem-
bly, meetings at Chautauqua, the follow
ing question, was written out to
be answered by Rev. DR.. Buckley, the
talented editor of the New York Chris
tian Advocate, one of the official organs
of the Methodist Episcopal Church:
"Is Christian under obligations to
identify himself with the Prohibition
party?'
DIR. Buckley's reply was as follows
the italics being ours:
"No man is under obligations to iden-
tify himself with either party, unless he
thinks the cause is to be advanced by
one of them. and then hs is. A man is
not obliged to support any particular
party. DO not dlJO0 GRy man to use yOuT
| Church relation to tell yOu hCao to cote. Vote
according to your judgment as honest men.
! The man aohO undertakes to use yeotr Church
relations to compel yOu to cote according to his
Uieacs has the spirit Of Rome. You stand or
fall to your own conscience. Vote to
promote prohibition, according to your
honest opinion of the best way to do it,
regardless of the opinions of Others
Rev. DR.. Warren, another eminent
minister and editor of the Northern
Christian Advocate, of Syracuse, N. Y,
in the last issue of his paper, has the
following practical sermon to his breth>
rem of the Methodist press, who uphold
the pretensions of the political Prohibi-
tionists under DR.. Leonard:
1--WE do not like to catechise our broth
er editors. But we do want to ask a
few plain questions, for our own en-
! fightenment, of those who speak with
double voices concerning the license of
the liquor traffic. Do you really mean
to say that free whisky is the policy to
which we are bound by the obligations
of principle and expediency until such
time as we can suppress the traffic by
statutory or constitutional prohibition
! Nuw-pardon us-do not dodge that one
question. We want square answer.
| You tell your readers at one time that
the liquor traffic imposes a heavy bur
den of public expense. Your charge is
only TOO true. The enormous figures
you produce are, indeed, a fearful in
dictment against the traffic, and we in
fer that you deem it just TO compel the
traffic to reimburse the public for the
great loss which it causes, while it con
tinues to exist in spite of our efforts to
destroy ii. Indeed, you so affirm by
saying, as you often do, that the outra
ous business should be made to pay the
bills it creates. But then you preach TO
us about the iniquity Of 'legalizing' the
traffic by license, and tell us that by it
the public becomes a partner in the bu-
siness; that license is the 'bribe' on tax
PAYERS: 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 originate in Ii
cense; 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 enforcement of prohibitory laws ?
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"