The freeman. (Parkersburg, W. Va.) 1886-18??, 1888-08-29
MR.. CROSIER'S LETTER RE-
VIEWED.
Inconsistency Of fighting for Rrohibi-
ton in a Party opposed to Rohi-
bition.
BERKELEY SPRINGS, Aug. 16, 'SS.

BERKELEY SPRINGS. Aug. 16, 'SS.
EDITOR FREEMAN:
Please allow me space for some
reflections suggested by the declin-
alton OF Mr.. J. II. Crosier, as pub
lished in your issue of 10Th inst.
1 am fearful that the reasons he
assigns for the action he has taken
might prove misleading to some
honest Prohibitionists on account
of his plausible way of putting
things. His acknowledgement of
the compliment and honor conferr-
ed upon him by the Prohibition
party in nominating him as one of
their candidates for Judge Of the
Supreme Court of Appeals, is couch
ed in very complimentary language
which will doubtless be regarded as
fattering to every member Of the
Parkersburg Convention.
But he declines to accept the
honor thus conferred and assigns
two distinct reasons for declining;
viz.-Firse, his comparative youth
and lack of experience and second,
the fact that he is not a Prohibition
party man.
l regard these reasons, or either
one of them, as amply sufficient for
his declining a nomination by the
Prohibition party, and had he stop
ped at that period there would have
been no occasion for comment or
criticism. But he does not stop
here he says, 81 have ever been,
and am now, a strict adherent to
cardinal democratic principles, as l
understand them," &c. There is
certainly no objection by Prohibi-
tionists to such position. But his
next declaration is that he cannot
consent to identify himself with
any PARTY but the Democratic.
Now Mr. Editor, can you see the
necessity, propriety or consiste ncy
of such a statement, in such a con-
nection by gentleman who. furth-
er on IN the same letter, declares
himself "uncompromisingly in IA
vor of the ratification of the propos-
ed prohibitory Amendment" 1t
is right here that l take exceptions
to his position. The idea of ratify-
ing theAmendment by a party avow-
eddy opposed to all sumptuary
laws" which of course means op-
position to Prohibition and en-
trusting It's enforcement to that
same PARTY, is so paradoxlcal that
it is too absurd to be ridiculous.
Please note that l am speaking of
PARTIES and not of principles or
individuals, for l conceive that
man may be strict adherent to
the cardinal principles" of either
Democracy or Republicanism and
at the same time be sound Prohl-
bitionist. I can say, as honestly as
Mr.. Crosier, that Il have ever been
and am now, a strict sdherent to
cardinal Republican principles, as
l understand them" and | lay
claim to as much love for my party
as he has for his. But l waited
long and hoped in vain to see my
party move 10 the direction of Pro-
hibition, and believing with Mr..
Crosier, the liquor traffic to be, not
only a "great evil and an unmiti-
gated nuisance" but matter of
National political Importance over
shadowing and overwhelming all
other issues, I have been constrain-
ed to let my party go and join the
only one that has the "honest NOR
al courage" to engage the monstroun
evil in asquare fight, without "tear,
favor or affection"
And in doing this do not need
to forzake my Republican princi-
ples-only the party. What can
Mr.. Crosier hope for from his party ?
Let no prohibitionist be deluded
by following his leading.
The Amendment to be effective
must have favorable party back
Of it to enforce 1t.
| should like to say a word to
my Anti-Saloon Republican frienus
but lest this letter be too lengthy,
more anon.