Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1888-06-08


9Th JOHN A. BUCHANAN of Washington,
10th. R. B. POORE, of Appomattox.
We called attention last Sunday to the pro-
hibition question, and showed that the Pro-
hibitionists had confidence enough in their
own strength to justify them in running this
year candidate of their own for President
of the United States.
We are of the opinion that the Prohibition
party will not manifest much strength this year
Nevertheless, the fact that in 1884 Mr.. Cleve-
land received less than l, 100 majority in New
York-or in other words would not have been
elected President at all if $50 of the men who
voted for him had voted for Blaine-warns us
that in any one of the closely contested States
of New York. New Jersey, Connecticut, and
Indiana, few votes cast for the Prohibition
candidate might change the result. The
Washington Post says the Prohibitionists hold
the balance of power in the presidential cleo
tion. The Petersburg L,ader Appeal says that
prohibition is the coming issue in politics, and
that tits influence will be felt even in the pres
idential contest of this year, but more i'm
pressively in 1892. and perhaps decisively in
1896" -Ric7lzaoad Dispatch.
We think that on looking over the re-
cord, our contemporary will fad that soon
fidencs enough in their own strength" has
not been in the past the condition on
which the Prohibitionists ran ''a can
didate of their own for President of the
United States" For the past sixteen
years they have had candidates of their
own-James Black in 1872; Green Clay
Smith and Gideon T. Stewart in 1876;
Neal Dow and DR.. Thompson in 1880, and
Gov. st. John of Kansas and VIM. Daniel
of Maryland in 1884. All those candidates
were put in the field by the Prohi bit &c se 81
with as little ''confdse.z1os in their own
.s &c y oiect them, and as little hope
of their election, as accompanied the two
candidates-Gen Clinton B. Fisk of New
Jersey and John A. Brooks of Missouri
who were put in the field by the Indiana
polls convention last week. A reference
to the Presidential election returns of
November, 1884, will show what they were
put in the field for. La Connecticut the
vote for st. John was 2.4S9. New jersey
6,159, and New York Is, OO3 In all of those
States those votes, with three tickets run
ming, constituted the balance OF power. In
1872, the vote their Presidential candidate
received, was 5 sos; in 1876, $3.50; in 1880
II $40. and in 1884, 1873 OH. A party that
in sixteen years and four Presidential
elections only manages to poll 1853 900
votes out Of 1000, 900, does not put can
didates in the field at the fifth with any
expectation or even hope of their cleo
tion. Nor does it array them with any
any expectation of very large aggregate
vote, as compared with the total cast. But
we take it that they expect to do just what
they have done in New York, New jersey
and Connecticut-hold the balance of
power. What is the practical benefit of
that. the result of the Presidential cleo
ton showed. liz all of the three States
named, the Democrats won, and the end
was that the Republican party was un-
seated. The ice was broken for the Demo-
cracy and Prohibition as well.
AS the advocates of both Prohibition
and Abolition placed their fight on high
moral ground, it may be interesting, hay
ing traced the former through its Presiden
tial campaigns, to follow the latter
over the same track. Just as there was a
'Temperance'' candidate in 1872, so there
was Liberty" candidate in 1910. for
abolition was as little talked of in 1910.
as ''Prohibition was in 1872, except by
a few of the most advanced men in their
respective parties. In 1910 James G. Birn-
ley, Liberty" received 1859 votes; ia
1874. again candidate, he received 81 800;
IN lS4S Martin Van Buren,, Free Soil,''
received 291 .263 votes; in 1852 John P.
Hale, s'Free Democracy" received 1885,
149 votes; in 1856 John e. Fremont, his
party having by that time swallowed near
ly one-half of the old Wing voters of the
Northern States, received 1,341 1854 votes
and 10 1860, Abraham Lincoln received
1866, 1852 votes and was elected. But for
all that, neither the Liberty, Free Soil,
Free Democracy nor Republican candi.
dates had in all these years gotten the sup.
port of majority of the people, for in the
election of 1860, while Lincoln received
1885, COO, the joint vote of the two rival
Democratic andidates-Douglas and
Breckenridge, was 1921 900, and the Wing
vote for Bell was $4,000.
The Abolition party which had for its
mission the remedy of a conceded evil,
had more rapid success than the Prohi-
bition party, which also inscribes on its
banner reform. The first was reinforced
by sectional hatred, that powerful motor
which worked for SO many days and nights
at the firesides and forums of America
before it drenched the nation with blood
The Prohibition party has none of this.
its very mission forbids it. for throuob
every quarter of the Union without regard
to geographical location are those who on.
pose it, from interest or from conscien-
tious conviction that the power it seeks 10
a dangerous one to the rights of the peo-
pie. 1t is slower too, because of the large
neutral class it has to convert into friends
Slavery was practicalmoney-value meas
IRE to free labor in the country-that
liouor is also. is lesson that has vet to
be taught by the Prohlbitionists. When