The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1886-12-03

previous" at this point9 The challenge
was to p ii. and not to me unless p IL
declined. Could do lers than TO wait for
p III. for al least one issue OF your paper
before entering upon the work his chal
lcnge called fort p. II. has failed 10 ''ma-
terialize." SO now may reasonably Dc
expected to proceed. If we look 10 see
just what p. II. claimed we shall find that
Bro. Stalker has twisted it somewhat, and
as he insists upon putting me into 'P. He,
Shoes" l shall object to defending what r.
III. has not said. Now p. ii. did not
publish him as being very ignorant, etc.. y
but that "Mr. French made the quite gen
eral impression" etc. did indorsc p. H.
to. the extent of saying heard things very
much in harmony with his article as
to the impression that was made, and
this statement may be coupled with Bro.
Stalker's admission that may have made
the impression referred 10. Proof beyond
this must come from the hearers. Whether
that impression was made by what he or
said, or the way he or i said it. or the feel.
ings of the listeners is Of course an oper
! question.
Next comes claim he makes upon mc.a
thing "am under obligation TO do, "and tha.
is to show the 'falsity of bis well authen.
ticated facts" while he ''coolly" refuses 10
give them 10 as. Here he mis-quotes me-
/ asked him TO give as. not Inc, the facts
l asked this after stating just above that
made no allusion whatever in my talk to
his speech. Now if Bro. Stalker really
wants this matter brought out in the ''in.
tercst Of truth" as he stated, why does he
decline to give as his statements of ''weil
authenticated facts" instead OF insisting
that must deal with hsarsay leaving the
very easy task for him TO answer by saying
II did not say so" But as he insists ]
will comply; still l do so under protest.
He says must "proce' or remain silent,
he will not notice irrelevant matters. |
will try to be very relevant shall dca,
with just one subject selected from his
speech, IN the present article, but there are
"many more to follow" if need be.
He did make his audience believe
that he justified the action OF the Demo
cratic party in its temperance Legislation
much more than the Republican, and that
the Democrat party of the south was far
ahead of the Republican party of the north
in its prohibition legislation. The lnipres.
sion they received was general their quo.
tatiOns of his statements differ somewhat
but not materially. Now happened to
take up that same question as common
third party talk" treated the southern
half Of this question rs follows: "They
tell MS the Prohibition sentiment in the
south is in advance of the north; that the
Democrat party of the south has given us
more and letter legislation in the south
than the Republican party of the north.
If so, why is it that the whole II soulheln
states gave but about 16, 900 votes for st.
John, while Michigan alone gave st. John
over Is. 900 and %, 900 for Preston. Again.
why, If the Democrats have done so well
south have they never put prohibition into
the constitution of single state, for they
have absolute power there TO DO so if they
wish, but they have done their wholc
work through local option. They claim
Georgia as their prohibition state, still
they lack between 12 and 20 counties OF
having it entire, and liable to have more or
less change at each election. While this
is fact, the Republicans of the north
have submitted prohibitory amendments
TO the people in four states and secured
prohibition in each of them.
next took up one Of their common
charges against the Republicans OF
the north. and especially in tins State, and
followed the facts in the case. The charge
is as follows: when the Republicans
came into power they found prohiblory
laws on the statute books, placed there by
the Democrats, apd repealed them" Nov
this charge is part false, and part truth
unfairly stated" 1t is true that they
found prohibition on the statutes, but not
true that the Democrats put it there The
people, by their vote, put it there, and the
! Supreme Court refused to sustain il be-
cause of that fact. When test suit was
brought there were three Democrat and
three Republican Judges, and the three
| first pronounced the law unconstitutional;
the latter three acere for sustaining IL, max
ing tic. thereby making the law nugatory.
The work of the next legislature, whatever
its political complexion might be, was to
remove il from the statute books; that
legislature chanced to be Republican, SO
they must be unfairly branded as opposed
to prohibition because it repealed the pro.
hibitory law 'that the Democrats gave us.
The next move IN the interest Of prohlbi,
ton was the Republican legislature giving
us prohibitory law that uas constitution
al, and the political complexion of the
vote was as follows--threc Democrats in