The times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1882-1897, 1888-10-26

and MtssOuri-fiftcen States. How mucl
or rather how little, the Prohibition part,
had 10 do in securing this legislation i
indicated by the fact that In the State
mentioned, in 1884. out of total vote o.
3.205, 524, the Prohibition candidate fol
The Presidency received 2l,57S votes
that is, one vote out Of every $50. Agar
ask, in view of these facts, what be
comes of the conclusion based on the
assumption that there can be no prohibi
tory legislation except by political party
specially organized for that purpose?
The question rs TO 3he erpedieacy Of q
Prohibition party has also, as it seems 10
me. beeu settled Iy tie test Of experiment.
The party has been in existence for
nearly twenty years. Prohibitory laws
have been passed in thirty-one of the
thirty eight States OF the Union. In no
single instance has this prohibitory legis--
lation been due to the Prohibition party.
In most cases these laws have been passed
by Legislators elected 10 spite of the oppo-
sition at the ballOt-box of rumsellers aud
party Prohibitionists. So far as am in
formed, not n single vote for a prohibit
try law has ever been cast by legislator
elected by the Prohibition party. The
only effect Of the party as factor IN poll
ties. in the Northern States, has been to
draw off votes from the party to which we
are mainly indebted for prohibitory legis-
lation. The Prohibition party therefore is
rather hindrance than a help to the cause
OF Prohibition. But 1t is inexpedicnt, If
not indeed positively harmful, is the de-
liberate aud expressed Judgment of the
great mass of pronounced Prohibitionsts
Of tie country The statement has re-
Gently been published that an examination
OF statistics made by the President OF the
State Temperance Alliance shows that not
m ire than one an Jorty of the Prohibition
ISIS o. the country are members OF the
Prohibition party. The following figures
show that this IS no cXaggerati0n. The
three representative Prohibition States are
Maine. Kansas aud Iowa. In these States
Prohibition has been adopted by decided
maj rites. And yet in 1884 out of a total
vote in those States of 771,2l9 the PrOhi-
brion candidate for the Presidency receiv-
ed just 8, $50 votes-that is, vote out OF
80. Suppo,i ing Prohibition adopted in
these States by "a bare majority the Prohi-
bition candidate re ceived but one vote out
of every 4J pronounced Prohbi,i3uis,s.
THIS result is highly significant, aud yet
il is not surprising H. is just what might
have been anuc 'pltcd.and What may be an
in the future. Aud for this sim
pie reason Prohibition party ticket submits
tie question Of Prohibition loith Prohibition
Handicapped The great mass of voters
have very decided convictions on other
important political Issues. Many, for in
stance, feel that their fioaucial interests,
it may be the means ~ support for them
selves and er ismllies : heir bread and
butter-dersnd on Protective Ta,iG.
Many feel that their material interests
wou!d be promoted by Free Trade Many
feel that important intereats Of the nation
ere imperlled by having the Federal
Government controlled by those lately
IN rebelion. Many have decided Convic.
tons ON The question of woman suffrage"
Now the Prohibition parry brings the
question to the baIlot.box in way that
requires the voter to ignore his cOnvic-
tions, however decided, on all other poll
tical questions however important or how
ever they may OBJECT his personal inter
ests, and, this too, when it il entirely prac-
licable to submit the question untrammel
led by any other political or personal
Now this to say the least,
Is unwise When man about to enter a
race puts on clogs, or gets into sack, il is
lOf kiuultu tudb WUhlCVtT OlHcI
object he may have in running, it Is not TO
win the race. One who enters to win
Dbeys the Soliptural Injunction to clay
aside every weight"
Our Prohibition party brethren might
learn wisdom IN this matter from the
enemy, the rumselers. Their different
policies are but another illustration that
''tbe children o. this world are wiser in
I,oir IN ba MI; % ~
The rum-sellers could poll much larger
vote than the party Prohibltionists. Yet
they do not organlzs themselves into
Liquor party" sand nominate Liquor
psrty' candidates. They know that to
1t the ballot-l OK Instead of this they
Personal Lii erty leagues. and
IN the interest of their traffic work within
he lines Of The exis ing parties in what
aver wy will be most likely 10 attain their
md, and at the ballot-box they recognize
but one principle Of nc,ion-to put their
rates nhere they soiI do the most good for
heir cause. / need not tell you ow pow
srful is the influence they in this way ex-
ert Rumselers may be wicked, but in
his matter they are not unwisc.
In your fifth consideration" you say,
ne government pays no attention TO any
hing but the ballot. Tho precise fact
md one which our Prohibition party
brethren seem to overlook-is, The Gov
pays no attention to anything hut
/ majority vt the ballot-box. With this
allow me 10 suggest the fol- |
owing substitutes for your concluding
considerations :"
8. 1t is the duty OF all who are in favor
VI Prohibition to cooperate in effort TO
secure operatice prohi6ltory legislation in
way will be most effectua TO
attain the end
0. This end can be most readily at
aimed. not by a Prohibition party, but by
,rganizing in every community a mo
Party anti Liquor League having for its
,bj.ct:- .frst-tO secure The enactment Of |
! Local Option prohibitory law in every
State where such law does not already ex-
st Second-to take such measures as may
, necessary to bring the question OF Pro
! bition to the bsllot-box in each district !; !
hird-to take such measures rs may be
most advisable TO secure majority 10 |
,ach district for Prohibition fourth