The Monitor. [volume] (Woodstown, N.J.) 1884-1892, 1886-11-05
Written Tor the MONITOR.
SUGGESTIONS ON TIE TEN PEKANCE
QUESTION.

Concluded

" baC oh Y I'M oNtls
The man who votes prejudice and notprin-
ciplc is such a man morally. When the
strong wind Of principle blows he is SIM
ply anniliilated. What is the great princi-
pie of to-day? the one worth fighting
for, worth dying for? Prohibition. And
he is a wise man who votes prohibition,
and is flying with the sure purposes of God
to a crown of eternal honor. | say vote
prohibition. 1t is the overshadowing issue.
Vote it! how, in what party, think honest
ly, prayerfully, without prejudice and your
self say. There is a large but decreasing
belief in the North tina it can be best voted
through the Republican party. There is a
large but decreasing belief in the South
that it can be best voted through the Dem
ocrat party. Can it? That question you
must decide. God forbid that you decide
it by yourpfejudice! On your knees before
God with ebriety flashing in your face, de-
eide it. And it may get state prohibition,
but even that "may get" is dimming, di-
mmishing, vanishing. But dare we stop
short of aiming at national prohibition.
And if aiming at national prohibition, how
pray can it be accomplished with Prohibi-
tionists North voting prohibition with the
Republican party, and Prohibitionists
South voting prohibition with the Demo-
cratic party? Before national prohibition
is accomplished evidently somebody has
fnt fx 1pa.I Will, fha old ,arfu NNlA
shall it be? 1t looks as though the solu-
ton might lie in a compromise; both lcay-
ing the old party and forming a new,
both leaving the old parties and joining
tie new already formed. am notifying to
decide this thing foryou. Iamsimplytr trying
to write an interrogation mark through
your thinking. And l would havethe inter-
rogation mark look in another direction.
Can a party divided on Il principle realize
that principle in law? When purpose is
divided it's efforts are derlded. Here is g
party wanting power, not so much per-
haps for principles sake as for its own
sake. 1t will, with a platform seeming to
include everything, often include nothing,
straddlc for the sake Of votes as wide as
the Colossus at Rhodes between whose part
ed legs great ships used to sail. Take a
practical illustration. Suppose some one
was taken up by the Prolibitionists. The
Republicans then indorse him and he is
elected. He is made speaker of the Assem-
bly,. AS speaker he has the appointing of
committees. Let us suppose it was last
winter. He did not appoint those commit
tees in reference to Prohibition, but you
may be sure he did appoint them in refer
ence to the Republican party; so that any
Republican measure could be favcrably
reported. But of course it should be said
in Justice to him that it might have been
impossible to get enough men OF his com
mittees who believed in submitting the
question of Prohibition to the people
strange that he couldn't from the Repub-
Decentralization party. He might not
have been able to do SO, l say. But what
did this Republican committee, in whose
party some believe lies the hope of Prohi-
bition-what did it do? 1t said to your
petitions for a simple right, the right to
say by counties at the polls eyes" or "no"
to the question of Prohibition, no! We
will sink that right deep in our spite, and
neutrality-suspicious. speaker do? He
expressed his surprise at the committees
report; and argued against it. Because
of the righteousness of Prohibition? Be
cause of the righteousness Of submit
ting in this country of a govern
ment of The people aud for the people and
by the people, a question to the people, a
question the people had asked to have sub
mitted to them? All! no. But because,
as he has said, it was bad policy for the
Republican party not to submit 1t. 1t
might lose votes; it might lose power by
not needing these petitions. Bad policy,
Yes. Honesty is the best policy, we have
often heard, and in truth We might add,
and the best policy is often the worst dis
honesty. The man who will tan on pol
icy when he ought to stand on principle,
is not worthy to have a principle put in
his trust Now is it generally true that
the Prohibitionist~- Republican puts the Re-
publican party first; using Prohibition
only as a stay in its throne? Is it true
that the Prohibitionist- Democrat puts
the Democrat party first, making Prohibi-
ton but a stay in its throne? Then they
are hot the parties through which prohibit
ton can be achieved. They are simply
fooling with Prohibitionists as the cat does
with the rat, getting COED and ready for 4
fat meal! Have the men you have sent as
Republicans or Democrats been first for
prohibition, and then for Republicanism or
Democratism? Then of what use in sending
them. Have your old party Prohibition
lists, their tongues dropping its doctrines
at home as the trees of the wood through
which Jonathan went after the Philistines
dropped honey, grown strangely silent in
the Legislature Then are you hitting
your mark or wasting your ammunition ?
PRAY understand me-. | am not dogma
tizing. | am only questioning. But do
dogmatize with all the power of truth
when | say, accursed the party that exists
for itself, and not for principle; accursed
the party that will mo- trust the people
accurscd the party that will not let the
people say whether they want rum or not