Woman's chronicle. (Little Rock, Ark.) 1888-1???, 1888-07-14
Anti-Prohibition Party Arguments.

, ANoNii' '"">'S
of one of our city papers appear the following op
jectons to the organization of the prohbtory party
in our state:
l. awe have not been advised of single
state which has cast larger vote against license,
or gained prohibition territory by reason of a, pro-
hibition party" Possibly, And yet this same
paper in another column says: 'ln no period OF
our national history have saloon keepers been con-
fronted with such formidable opposition in the
rapidly increasing public sentiment against their
traffic, state and municipal laws for its regulation
or suppression and the decisions of supreme courts
against their so-caed vested rights. Surely their
march is toward the setting sum-" Now, thequeston
that we would ask is to how far candor will allow
you to eliminate the organization of the prohl-
billion party from among the influences that have
brought about the above improved state of things.
Does the objector for one moment believe that 1t
can be eliminated? Strike out all the work of the
prohibtory party through press and platform, and
does anyone dare say such advance would have
been made? We do not claim everything, but we
do claim to have had hand in this matter.
2. ''Our information is that several southern
states, without such party, have gained more
rapidly and surely than any equal number of other
states which have tried the prohibition party
Possibly. And yet is this a valid argument
against the party? Suppose it were true that GER
tain states have advanced more rapidly without
the party than others with it, might not the adj
vance be more seeming than real. and the forma-
1T H. rst.ll -I,o essential TO the final VIC
tory? The angels at the birth of our Savior sanc
'Glory to God in the highest; peace on earth. GOOD
will toward men," And yet that same Savior
n unil II
send peace, but sword; to cause division. to
array father against son, mother against daugh-
ter, and mother-ln-law against daughter and
mans foes shall be they of his own household"
NOW that Chrlst's ultimate object was peace, who
questions? But that division may come first, who
denies! SO the introduction of prohibition party
into state may cause commotion and DELAY for
season, and yet be essential to ultimate and
speedest triumph. This "set-back' nonsense is
in your eye, and not in fact. 'Tried the probi-
bition party" We'd like to see state that has
yet tried it. You would find it so destitute of
rum-shops and brawls and jas, and wretcbed
homes and burdensome taxes, that you'd never lift
your voice or take your pen again against an or
gained political prohibitory party.
3. "Ihose states which secured constitutional
prolbltlon by the votes of the people did not sue
coed by means of aprohibition party" Possibly;
but what of it? Is that good reason for no
such party' Our forefathers cut grass and
harvested it with scythe; is that an argument
against moving machines? Our ancestors lighted
their dwellings with taow dips hadn't somebody
better start up and protest against gas and cleo
trlcty? The ancients travelled in numbering and
tedious old coaches; hadn't some one better de-
nounce railroads and steamers? The truth is, the
word mas ever been afraid of new things and
peen oent on resisting them, and it hasn't got over
1t yet 1t may be well that it is so but we would
call the attention of the obiector on this scoro 10
the fact that the worlds history does not show that
this is always if often, an objection of anv oreat
consequence. Let the prohibition party movement
be examined on its own merits, and not rejected
because some other clumsy machine has heretofore
done most or part Of the work which this party
now seeks to aid in doing.