The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1885-01-22

EDIToR DRMoCRAT:-Sfyeral weeks
ago the Repository In M 0 titOrial made
the assertion that prOhibiliO In Kansas
was an utter failure" We In an arti.
ole of ak inches In length took extep,
tiOns to said assertion, aud the Editor OF
the Repository replied 10 nj article by
assertions and Language foreign TO the
question, occupying almost Two col
lmns, WhrIeupOn VI wrote the fol
lowing reply 10 his lengthy assertions,
and they prOmi ed 10 publish the same
In the Repository, aud had the article
put In type over II week ago, but various
excuses " ere made from time to time
for its D0n'appearance, ana lnally we
were told on Friday morning, the 9th
inst, that the article could not appear
In their paper ut all, That the orders
from those who controlled The paper for
the estate were positive, TO refuse all
articles advocating the canae OF prohibit
ton. We, therefore, request that you
publish said article, not because you
may approve or condemn the position
we have taken, but because both sides Of
80 important q question should DO read
by the people OF this county.
PROHIBITION.
Canton, January 10, 1886,
PROHIBITION IN POLITICS"
EDITOR RRPoslToRY:-Please accept
thanks for publishing my short article
lat Saturday also thanks for your strict.
ures on said articleand your furnishing
the heading prohibition In Politics"
II IL quite evident that 'whlkey' has been
In politics for many years, and now II Ia
time that lta anudOle prohibition" had
a place N politics, 100. ! am not defend
Ing the PrOhibi Ion party as such, but
prohibition principles, which | verify
believe ~ the only thing that will ever
wipe out the rum trNll3, did say aud
now repeat that there must he a party
10 enforce prohibition, hut | did not sav
II must b. The Prohibition party, Inn
glad to know that In Kansas the Repdb.
liCan party has undertaken this matter,
aud that In g 0rgia the Democratic par
ty has done the same, ana | IN ly believe
both will DO successful. We propose to
affiliate with tlepar,y OF whatever name
which gives us the best embodiment OF
the pure principles OF the prohibition Of
the liquor trade. The Government
statistics you refer TO are the strOng.
est kind OF argument In favor
OF tho success Of Prohibition. | am only
surprised they have not shown u greater
increase Of Licenses TO sell liquor than
you claim, The increase f population Of
the cities OF Kansas the past four years
has been guile unprecedented, 225,O00
good cltIzens came to the State, not 10
keep saloons, for the saloon men have
been fleeing during this time, and this
new arrival Of emigrants brought with
them 100000 600 In w|Calth;and the rela.
tive increa' Q Of druggists, both whole
sale and retail, WHO sell liquor for law.
full use would DO fully all thu increase
you clOlm. But In Maine, Iowa, aud
Kansas provision Ia made that "A re.
aponslble party In each township may
be licenie o 70 sell liquors for medicinal
and mechanical psas, and this having
been ayailed Of IN many townships where
no saloons ever exlste', would also
greatly Increase the number OF Govern
ment licenses. 10 II not true that (sa
loons) az you put II In parenthesia, have
increased In Kansas since the adoption
OF Prohibition, but on the other hand
they have been closed throughout the
State except IN u few large cities aud 10.
calities where a certain class OF office.
holders and OH 'e.seekers have tTuCkled
10 the run ralllc and aided TO defy the
laws. Prohibition In Kansas has closed
every distillery, nearly all Of the thirty
two Dfeweries that thrlyed under the old
system, aud the last enumeration had
but Que saloon TO every twenty i've hun.
dred OF her inhabitants, aud IL rapidly
driving out the remainder; whllei 1 n Ohio
under the Scot tax law wa had one M.
lo0n 10 every two hnudrld and twenty.
Ave Of our citl2ons, almost ten'fold
greater under . license system han pro-
hibiti0n. In our own city there were 80
saloons when the Scott law went iuto
effect, and oigh'ee months after that
we had 100, an increase Of so per cent.
In one year Ond u half, and the same
growth was manifested In many other
places, Many Of tho more wealthy ANA
prosperous liquor men were In favor OF
said Scott law, ~ " gave Tespeclability
aud protection 10 the traffic, hut the
great body OF dram sellers rem nj u OF
the man that was well, but persisted in
taking medicine that no might be
better, and IL killed him. They were
not satisfied TO let good enough alone 10
fur az their interests were concerned,
aud now that they have succeeded In
getting the scott law out Of the way the
people will be called upon TO settle this
question, aud they Will say, prohibit the
trailc forever.
Thank YOU Tor your alluslon TO the
Issues OF 1884 and 1884 II ~ u thought.
ful reference. We that lived 10 vote for
free soil know tho parallel now on pro.
hlbiti0n, God was on tho aide Of free
soil a0d He " on the side Of prohibition;
HO liz alwaya on Tho aide OF the OPP
pressed, aud for taking OF every ehaGkle
that prevents human progress and hap.
pinesa, ll0 appeals u the hearts, the
Judgment and eympnthy Of men, not
thsif passions aud Uppetltes, aud organ
ig0a them 10 be used In advancing His
30 " " In 1884, The Free Sellers IN
1861 were moro fully organized than
ever before, aud cast II larger vote, and
said 10 the world that their principles
were eternal, and must prevail, tut they
dill not cart 10 keep up n separate
, organization II elter OF the dominant
parties took them up and NJ soon ~ the
Republican party adopted free soil, they
went on TO victory aud the free soil par.
W was no moro. so we say emphatically
To- dNy, our principles are eternal, but
we care not 10 p%nrpetuNle n new party IL
either OF the, dominant PARTIES will
s1uaHtly udopt our principles In their
National platform, M free soil WAS In.
l%ncorpotaled. The principle Ia what we