The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1886-12-24

erec, partisan politician that he is
"not in sympathy with the third
party" "P. H." mus. misrepresent
him.
On this line / propose two other
questions to Mr.. French: If all the
men OF 1856 in sympathy" with the
principle around which the Republ.
can party crystallized, had voted for
that principle, would Mr.. Buchanan
have been elected Again, if all the
men in sympathy with the prohibitive
principle had voted for it in 1854,
would Mr.. Cleveland have been
electedf This last question more
than indicates that there is some.
thing in the "third party" which Mr..
French is probably ain sympathy
with"
come now to that deftly ac-
complished "point by point" work
OF Mr.. French, in which he so
shrewdly "made no reference to Mr..
Stalker" The first "point" noticed
in his last article is, "that the Demo.
cratic party of the south is far ahead
of the Republican party of the north
in its prohibition legislation" am
surprised that Mr.. French should
have attempted, on tina, night OF
wonderful achievement,(?) to antago.
nize this "point," as he ought to
have known that for that "well au-
thenticated fact" / have good Re.
publican authority. No less a per.
sonage than the distinguished Senator
Sutton of Iowa. In replying to
speech made in the senate of Iowa
last winter by Senator Bolter, (Dem.)
against providing more stringent
measures for the enforcement of the
prohibitory law in that State, he said
that prohibition has more Demo.
cratic support to day than Repubh-
CAM" and he proved his stat tement by
swell authenticated facts" (Which /
can give if necessary taken from the
United States Revenue Report for
1883. He showed that Mississippi.
Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee
and Alabama, all Democratic states,
have less retail liquor dealers in pro.
portion to their population than any
Republican state in the north. Mis-
slssippi stands first. Georgia second
Maine the eighth. "Can the Sena-
tor from Harrison" asked Senator
Sutton, "look at this array of the
prohibition states and say that pro.
hlbltion is more Republican than
Democratic" Senator Bolter was
silent; and so ought Mr.. French 10
be. "One half the south is under pro.
hibltion." In the presence of these
facts, how much is the limping logic
OF MIR. French worth, based on TWO
years old fgures2 Is he "napping,"
or is he going i: "blndly?"
But says Mr.. French, ",he Repub.
hcans have submitted prohibitorv
amendments in four states and
secured prohibition in each of them
A little too fast, my friend. Admit.
ting that Republicans submitted the
question, that does not make them
Prohibitists, nor does it mean that
Mey secured prohibition ain four
states" Let me place what the
Chicago Tribune said in an editorial,
OF Oct. a, 1885, in opposition to what
Mr.. French says in the Owosso
Times of Dec. q, 1886. 1t saws: The
universal democratic effort in the
western states to identify the Repub.
licans with prohibition is a partisan
trick. Prohibition originated with
the Democrats. In the recent
Maine vote on the adoption of
constitutional amendment embody-
ing the old Democratic statute there
vere as many Democratic Uoies for ii
as there Oe,e Rebn6hean gotts.
When the Iowa prohibitory amend.
ment was submitted it received a
heavy Democratic vote" Who is
on this question? The
Chicago Tribune, the admitted ora
Gle of the Republican party of the
northwest, or Mr.. French, who, "by
clear(2) and full setting forth of third
party mistatements"C) caused the
mists 10 "rise and pass away from
he mind of "P. H." and a few
others, on that memorable night at
Pittsburg? If the Chicago Tribune
8 authority then Mr.. French was
either "caugbt mapping" or he was
very unfair in his statements
Which is it?
As the other two points referred
o in his article, are points l did not
ouch at Pittsburg, leave them for
he present. THOMAS STALKER.