The Brookhaven leader., 1885-12-03
Partisan and Non-Partissh Prohl-
bItlon.

the difference between partisan and
non partisan Prohibition. In every
state in the Union there are thous-
ands Of earnest, ardent, active Pro-
hibitionists who belong to one or
the other of the two great national
parties, and who deprecate the origi-
nation of the Prohibition party.
The adherents Of the Prohibition
party are a mere handful in COM
parison with the non-partisans.
Dishonest whisky newspapers some
times try TO dupe their readers by
ignoring this difference. When it
was announced that Leonard polled
10000 votes in Ohio, some OF these
whisky organs spoke Of this in such
way as 10 leave the impression
that these 10000 ballots represent
the entire strength Of the Prohibi-
tion sentiment in Ohio. This is an
egregious error. If we wish TO as
certain the strength of the Prohibit
ton sentiment of the country, We
must examine, not the ballots for
St. John for President, or for the
various candidates of the Prohibi.
ton party for State offices, but the
votes on the question of Prohibit
tion in the various State Legisla
lures.
The Prohibitionists certainly con-
stitute majority of the voters Of
the States OF Maine, New Hamp-
shire, Vermont, Kansas and Iowa,
since all these have Prohibition
laws; yet St. Johns vote in these
States was comparatively very
| small.
Georgia has Prohibition in about
a hundred counties; yet Georgia
cast her vote for Cleveland. In
1881 the legislature of Wisconsin
passed Prohibition amendment to
the constitution by vote Of 81 to
80, very handsome majority, but
as two-thirds majority was needed
to change the constitution, the
measure failed. In Pennsylvania,
in 1881, a similar measure passed
the house by a vote Of 100 to SO,
but failed in the senate. In New
Jersey Prohibitory law was pass
ed by the senate, but defeated in the
house by only two votes.
In Michigan, in 1888, the Pro-
hibitory amendment passed both
houses by large majority, but
lacked a two-thirds majority. In
Massachusetts the amendment was
defeated, but pollcd So votes for to
I lis against-a very respectable mi
nority. In 1882 Nebraska came
within two votes of constitutional
Prohibition. In 1882, in Ohio, the
constitutional amendment passed
by very large majority, and lacked
only three votes of passing the sem
ate. In Illinois and in Missouri. in
1882, the amendment received a ma
jority vote in both houses. In West
Virginia, in 1883, the amendment
passed the house and lacked ouly
three votes of passing the senate.
In Arkansas, in 1881. the amend,
ment passed the house by vote of
81 to II, but was defeated in the
senate. In 1881, in Texas, it passed
the senate by a vote of % to 7, but
lacked seven votes of passing the
house. In 1888, in Oregan, it re-
ceived majority vote in both hou-
SEES. In 1883, in Minnesota, it lacked
only eleven votes.
Thus we see that in large num-
her Of states majority of the
legislators have cast their votes for
the most radical Of all prohibition
legislation - constitutional prohibit
ton. Then in a number of states
there are local option laws by means
of which large areas are under a
prohibition regime.
In Maryland, Is counties out of
"a adopted prohibition in 1882
The rural regions of South Carolina
are largely under prohibition.
In 1882, 62 out Of "A. counties in
Arkansas voted against license.
Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee,
Louisiana and Connecticut all have
prohibition over large areas of their
, territory. Local option laws have
failed in several other states by a
very few votes.
: Now, in view of these facts, the
man who asserts that prohibition is
dying is either totally ignorant OF
the history of this great reformatory
movement or else-well, the reader
can fill ont the snfttence.