The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1886-10-28

eight opposition members. The senate-for
the same reason-contained but nineteen
republicans to thirteen members of the oppo-
sition-three less than were absolutely neces-
sary to secure submission.
In 1884, the republican party, hoping that
prohibitionists might profit by experience
and turn from the error of their ways, re-
newed its promise, but was met by the same
kind of tactics, bitter opposition to its legis-
lative candidates by the third party, all over
the state, and the result was, the legislature
of 1885 was divided as follows: House, fifty
two republicans, forty-eight opposition ;
senate, eighteen republicans, fourteen oppo-
sition. True to the promises of the party,
Governor Alger, in his message, recommended
the submission of the amendment, and it
passed the house by the following vote
Yeas, sixty-seven, just the required number :
nays, 28. Forty-seven republicans and
twenty members of the opposition voted in
favor of the measure. Twenty-six OF the
opposition and two members from the city
of Detroit, EAGAN and McCLELAND. classed
as labor-republicans, voted against it. Five
members, three republicans and two opposi-
Some of the republicans were detained by
sickness, one at least on account of the severe
illness of his wife. And prohibition orators
accuse him of lodging vote, and say his
wife was conveniently ill. But whether any
one really lodged the vote or not il did not
affect the result, as the measure passed the
house.
There certainly was no republican lodging
in the senate. The vote stood eighteen yeas.
all republican, to thirteen nays, all opposi-
ton. One democrat was absent. And APP
pearances would indicate that the result was
not at all dstasteful TO the prohibition party.
1t held convention at Lansing about the
time the measure was under consideration, at
which one of its prominent speakers declared
that they did not want the question submit
ted, that they were not ready for it. And it
is currently reported that Rev. JOHN RUSSELL.
the father of the prohibition party, has said
openly, :" wouldn't accept prohibition at the
hands of the republicans; / don't want the
amendment through their agency: / want no
prohibition unless we can get it through the
prohibition party :"
Again, we are told that the democratic
party has done more for the cause of temper
ance and given the country more prohibitory
legislation than the republican party ever
did. statement that any ordinarily intelli-
gent lad should know is absolutely false.
There are six states in the Union that have
prohibitory laws on their statute books, and
in which the doctrine of prohibition has
become well established. These states are
Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Yer
mont, Iowa and Kansas, every one of them,
now and ever since the formation of the
| republican party, strongly republican. They
talk about prohibition in the South, but the
only prohibition there is local option. which,
when suggested for Michigan. the third party
bitterly condemns. The prohibition party in
the South is almost too small to count. In
all the fourteen southern states there were
not as many votes polled for ST. JOHN as in
the state of Michigan alone, and he had but
trifle over $4,000 in this state and the total
ST.. JOHN vote In the six prohibition states
above mentioned was exactly 12,361. 1t is
one of the foolish fallacies of the third party
men that all the prohibitionists of the country
or even respectable minority of them are TO
be found in the ranks of their party. An
other fallacy is that if they can succeed in
defeating the republican party, its members
will come to them and help them build up
their own party. Republicans are pretty
good fellows, but they are human knocking
them down will not be apt to secure their
friendship and good will. MAHoNfET went to
the mountain because the mountain would
not come to him, and if the prohibition
party desires the help of the republican party,
it must play the MAHoMET act and do the
coming itself.