The Waco daily examiner. [volume] (Waco, Tex.) 187?-1888, 1885-08-09

from, and they preach far enough
from the text, Ms neither touch the
points presented in the letter.
Prohibitionists, the "other tax pay
err with buzz saw attachment" puts Ia
a plea In the nature ofa con
fession, aud evidence. Confessing the
force of my argument, he sought to
avoid the effect of them, by flying off
upon the moral tangent. Now Tax
Payer has no disposition to 20 into
that phase of the argument, but If he
felt SO inclined argument, would not
be wanting sufficient to convince the
truly good that "thc leach who sucks
his prosperity through the bunghole
of whiskey barael occupies just
about as hig. moral plain as the
man who seeks to rob his neighbors
through the agency of the ballot box.
| Now comes the valiant Richard from
the far oil precincts of Abbott, Hill
county, crying, not for u horse, but for
| Waco merchants, mechanics, brick
layers, and makers, when his vivid
Ian gination has converted into whis-
key guiding dudes, to be transform
ed into pickers, and Waco store
houses reduced to corncribs. Let US
suggest to friend Richard that
when farmers get to storing
their grain in storehouses that rent AT
81 800 year, after one months stor-
age they will have an interest of about
two cents a bushef in the wheat But
perhaps Richard, with that liberality
which always characterizes those
persons who are ever ready TO run
hn h.,ot,,nc, lot fhA Hat tt
dictate the religion of their neighbors,
would have the Waco property hold
ers to bear their loss, and rent their
houses at $1,000 per month. No,
Richard, you threaten the Waco prop
erty holders with just what we warned
them of-the reduction of their $3.50
stores into $40 corn-cribs. Sophisti-
cal as our arguments, Richard seems
to accept them, and instead of deplor-
ing the decline of Waco property,
points ii out as the chief good TO be
attained by the adoption prohibition.
While Richard has the intellect to dis.
cover our sophistries, II not TO show
them to others, he seems not to know
what are the coMmonest rights OF
! manhood he propOunds to us the
: question. We answer: The right TO
| regulate his own diet according to tine
wants OF his own stomach or fancy of
his palate, simply this and nothing
/ more.
Both Prohibitionist aud Richard
show much more inclination to dis
cuss Taxpayer than TO tackle his argu-
ment. ProhibitiOnist procce to
weigh his brains, measure his morali'
| ty, and Tx the attitude of his ainbi'
tons; while Richard gauges his cop
per-bottom aud estimates his tax role
AS these are questions in which the
public have no interest, their discus
sion is an imposition upon your space
and the time of your readers. Ant
us it is amodc OF discussion never i'll
dulged in by gentlemen, it should b'
deemed unworthy of contradiction II
a gentlemau's response. In conclu
sion there lie one remark of ltichards
which is most true of him aud mos
of his calibre, aud the leaders in III,
prohibition movements. VIII
them, as he says "The tim
for argument has passed
with them; reason has been dethroned
right and Justice trampled under foot
and they stand ready TO strike dow
our free institutions; and arguments
moral, political or commercial, hav
about as much effect upon them a
f water poured upon a ducks bacl
But we are not prepared to bcliev
that majority of our citizens will ad
init themselves the blind, unreasonin
, fanatics that Richard boasts himscl
|, And to those intelligent voters, VIII
} are willing to hear the voice of RET
son, what we write il addressed.
, Now, as both champions of prohib
, ton admit all that Taxpayer warne
i the people would be its effect, an
even 20 farther aud make these evi
the chief charm of prohibition, W
!, have accomplished our. object, All
r shall impose upon the EXAMINER
its readers no more, unless IL be
+ submit II few unlying figures to sho
the amount of increase in taNatiC
-. that prohibition will neccssitaie.
l. TAXPAYER,