Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-11-21
rhs rrohibitory Amendment.
To the Editor Of the Gazette V' - 80

lN"NNio i'eN ibi HlN YEARS IN three sue
cessive legislatures dlsregarded the right
OF petition and trampled on the sovereign.
ty OF the people by refusing TO submit |
this question, although petitioned /
by over l05, 900 citizens; and then |
In convention assembled had /
continued 10 ignore the demand OF the |
better element Of their own party, and TO 4
trample on the fundamental principle OF |
Democracy, the sovereignty OF the people, |
there was no alternative left for the lead |
ers Of this reform but 10 carry the quos-
ton directly 10 the people at the ballot |
box, and demand the election of logis. |
lature, pledged in advance, TO submit |
this questioulto vote OF the people. Now
that this has been done, and the requisite
majority Of members elected, pledged TO
submit the amendment, you can well af-
ford TO say "let the people vote on IT,"
Aud admitting that sufficient number
of the pledged members could be induced
to violate their pledges 10 the people,
still the Democratic leaders viii prefer
70 submit the question to the people,
with the hope OF defeating II at the polls,
In order to prevent the Prohibition party
from assuming dangerous proportions In
the state. the 10000 voters who sup
ported the Prohibition party this year,
are the straight Prohlbitionists, who owe
no allegiance to any other party. But
the Democratic, Republican aud Labor
parties are also full of ProhiDuonists,
who were prevented by party ties from
voting their real sentiments In the late
election There are not less than l00,0 600
voters in the Democratic party alone
who really desired, and many actually IN
tended TO vote the Prohibition ticket at
the late election; but many were
made to believe, that having taken part In
the Democratic primaries and conven-
tions, they were bound TO all the nomI.
nees Of that party. Many were whipped IN
under the party lash on the eve OF the
election, aud iho5 who could not be
forced to support the Galveston ticket
were stood If, aud hence 1t was that over
the greater portion OF the state very
small vote was cast. The men who
STAYED away from the polls were the
Democratic Prohibltionists, who could
not be induced to support the Democratic
liquor ticket Let the legislature again
refuse to submit the amendment,
and these 100 600 emocratic-Prohibition-
lists will support the Prohibition ticket In
1888. Rather than tins should occu the
| Democratic leaders will let the legislature
submit the amendment TO the people.
But YOU do not seem TO understand the
present status Of this reform, when you
refer TO the action Of the legislature be-
ing in any sense dependent on further
petitions. The people have tried petit
tionsi only to ind their will disregarded,
and their sovereignty trampled under
| foot and now they have taken the matter
into their own hands, and elected legis-
| lature, instructed by their very election,
| to carry out the will of the people, and
submit the amendment. | hope no Pro-
| hibitionist will so lar humiiate himself
as to write or sign another petition ask
! ing for this sovereign right OF the people.
| We no have legislature instructed by
| the people To- submit the amendment. /
| know that the party leaders can manipu-
| late sufficient number Of the
members 70 prevent 1t. Let them do
| it II they dare. The Prohlbitionists now
| have the Democratic leaders poised on
the horns OF dilemma. We megnani-
mously give them choice as TO which horn
they will rest on. They can either do
what they have for six years persistently
refused to do, and what the organization
| Of the Prohibition party Is now forcing
them to do, viz, submit the constitutional
amendment; or they can still refuse, and
thereby lose 100, 0U0 votes, and let tine Pro
| hibition party take control OF the state gov
eminent. We give you your choice, gen
tlemen, but we intend 10 force you to re-
spect the sovereignty OF the people, We
are not otlice-Beekers, as you are we are
willing for you TO hold the olicesi
provided you respect the rights Of the
people and honestly execute the laws
But you will not hold them much longer
. 4 10 tpp F1ag hn
ereignty of the people by refusing to sub
mt constitutional amendment on the
liquor question to q vote OF the people
The GAZETTE is also wrong IS to the
proper time to submit the amendment. II
YOU will refer TO the last article In the
constitution, which provides for the sub
mission Of amendments, you viii see that
IL was the evident intention OF the fran
era of that instrument that the Legislature
in fixing the time for the election ON
the proposed amendment, should fix
a date different from the time
of the constitutional biennial
election for state and county offices, and
also time when no other question eX
cent that of constitutional amendments
is before the people. The very fact that
the legislature Is authorized TO fix time
shows that II was not intended thet thost
elections on amendments should come of
at the regular elections for county ant
state Offices, which the constitution itsel
prescribes shall occur every two years
il it mad been intended for these amend
ments to be voted on at the regular bien
NAL elections, the constitution would 81
have expressed II, instead OF authorizing
the legislature TO fix time.
Besides, 1t is the distinctive position o
both the Democratic and Republican par
ties that prohibition is non partisan
/ measure, and should be carried out D
non-partlsan methods; in which all Prom
bitionists Of all parties can act together
regardless of party. Then II you wish =
be consistent, don't mix up the prohiDl
ton question with the state and natlone
partzan election Of 1888, In the mop
. that In the midst Of party prejudice an
I excitement II will be forgotten or Ignored
nut give us a non-partizan election, o
the LIQUOR question alone, at leisur
} tIme for farmers and laborers, say In Jul
or August, 1887, when every voter in N
3 state, regardless OF party, can vote n
real sentiments, and we can have N
: question settled in Democratic way :
fair majority vote.
z The objection TO the cost Of such elet
/. tion Is mere pretense. II would not !
drop in the bucket compared with u
; immense amounts virtually given 10 10
canjtol syndicate, or squandered on pen
saattarv md asylum rings or given 70 u