Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1888-10-24
THE Temperance Party.

TITS FR1unIrIoNrs-s SHOWN To HNSr
STEADILY mNuEEED THE FEOHIBI-
TIlS CAUSE.
Prof. !. T. Duffili, u. D. Of Prince
\ ton. asks the question Ought Tenn
/ p-rauce men 10 vote with the thiri
party /" in the last Independent, and
answers it in thene-ative. He SAYS:
Whether n Prohibition Party :
tie only way 20 secure prohihitory
. legislation Is rota question OF theory,
20 be decided by reasoning; 1t IS a
simple question OF fact, 20 lie decided
/ by reference 70 the record.
The Prohibition Party was or
/ canized in 1869. Prior TO 1869 q
prohibitory law had been enacted in
/ Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con
necticut. New York. Delaware, Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa,
/ Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas
that is In sixteen states. Ny au
,horitv for this statement l., The
World Almanac" for 1857. H. some
lof these States the law was declared
unconstitutional in others 1t was
sub=5 queutly repealed, in others
modified by local option amendment,
b IN others it rsm1ins IN force TO the
} present day. Now, in view of these
, facts, what becomes OF your conclusi
! on based n the assumption that there
can be no prohibitory legislation eX
I cept by q Ir hibition Party2
Further. sFuce the organization o.
the Prohibition Party local cPtior
Iprohbitory laws have been enacted
a IN New jersey, Maryland, Virginia
I, Noith Carolina, Georgia, Alabama
,, Mississippi. Louisiana, Texas, Ten
ue~~ce, Kentucky, Arkansas auC
NssuUri-Gfteen States. How mucl
or rather how little the Prohibition
10 Pastv had to do in securing thi
Z Legislation Is Indicated by the fgc
10 that IN the States mentioned, in 1884
:. out of total vote Of 3,2O5, ,524, tn
l. Prohibition candidate for the pres
" dency received 2I. SIS votes-that II
Ms one vote out Of every $50. Again
nj ask, in view of these facts, wha
= becomes of the conclusion based o
the assumption that there eau be u
An prohibitory legislation except 10y
ld political party specially organized f
lp that purpose p
I In Maine, Kansas, and low
prohibition has heen adopted @
Vi decided marorities. And vet in lSS
" out Of total vote in these States
~ T7l.2l9, the Prohibition car dIda
for the Presidency received just
$50 yotes-;hat Il, vote out Of 9
Supposing Prohibition adopted
,al these states by bare majority, Il
:. Prohibition candidate received b.
, one vote out of every 45 pronounc,
oy Prohibitiouists.
ic- The question as to the exPedien
for of n Prohibition Party has also, as
mo seems to me, been settled by the t
of experiment.
< The party has been in existea
the for nearly twenty years ProhIbItC
lty laws have been passed in thirty Q
,os Of the thirty eight States of
,. Union. In no single instance b
'''' this prohiSi;ory legislation been {
son to the Prohibition Party In m
IN cases these laws have been passed
the legislators elected in spite OF
..a, opposition at the ballot-box Of II
- sellers and party Prohibitions
So far as l am informed, not a SIN
do vote for prohibitory law has G
-son been cast by legislator elected
lted the Prohibition Party. The O
,rca effect OF the party as a factor
politics, in the Northern States,
uei been to draw off votes from
lams party to which we are mainly ind
well ed for prohibitory legislation
,rsu thus occasionally elect the ca
for dates of the party avowedly opp,
To prohibitory legislation.
tue Prohibition Party therefore is IA
ly he hindrance than help to the C
e of OF Prohibition