Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-04-17
FIGHTING BACK.
Col. Taos. Z, Benusr's Reply to the
''Heert Of Oak" kdvocasOs-He
Advises Counsersctisn.
Shall the Counseis of Democracy be Dis
surbsd by an Issue Buried Under
100000 Majority.
TYLER, TEX, April Is, 1883.

L. uaS USCOLuS 4uILS Tue I6SDlOn OF lat
for prominent snti-prohibition Demo.
crsts to receive letters from their friends
asking for an expression of opinion touch
Ing the future course of the Democratic
party In Texas upon the question Of pro
htbitisn, thereby giving an opportunity to
haVe their views published st length.
have not received such letter, but by
way OF giving q little variety to the publ
csttone, | present the other side Of the
question.
There seems 10 be precor cer.ed effort
on the part Of those who have written
from the anti standpoint to create the i'm
preston that the defeat OF prohibition in
Texas in 1887 was an overwhelming Dem
oCTattC triumph, whereas the returns
show that the Republican towns and
COUNT IN the state gave large msiori-
ties against prohibition, while the Demo-
cratic counties either gave msiorities for
prohibition or came so close as to leave
In doubt the Character of vote given oy
the Democrats exclusively.
These letter writer's, assuming that
thn election Of 1887, wss 8 Democratic
triumph, declare il to be the duty Of the
Democratic party to inse the "heart of
osR' plank IN the next state platform.
Ta.y urge ap0n anti- prohibition Demo-
Cys,S III over Texas to "seek representa-
tiOn in the state conventions" and ia the
SINE connection declare hat there is no
pu Pose in this to Discriminate against
PfChibitiOnis's in the distribution Of
party aO0ors" The very fact that anti
PrJn.bitionists, as such, are urged 10
"Seek representation in the state con-
ventions" Is, II itself, On attempt at dis
elimination, unless to be delegate to q
sLsLe convention be not deemed q party
honor.
Tne proposition is to ignore q mans
views on the tariff, on the Blair bill, on
the direct tax bill, on the reduction CT
Internal revenue, on the question of cen
traliz9d power in the federal government,
but TO determine Ills claims to o ses5 in
the state convention upon the one idea
that he is an anti PrOhibltionist.
The prohibition Democrats have not
desired to bring on this contest within
the party, but there seems to be no al er-
native. AS the anti prohibition leaders
hsve thus publicly declared their purpose
to seq possession OF the state conven-
lions, 1t becomes the duty of the prohibi-
tiOl Democrats to meet the issue Vigor-
Ously. 1t is their duty TO attend the pri-
marles, and zee thst their views are re-
teCted in the delegates elected to the
county conventions. Let them be watch
ful at the primaries and keep out the Re
publican Sllies, who alone gave victory to
the ants in 1887. II prohibition is to be
the sole Issue, then the pros should see
10 it that none bat prohibition Democrats
are elected to the national, state, con
OCCASIONAL, senatorial and representative
conventions.
Gentlemen mSy write with kind of Sc
rene dignity about their being 10 inten
tiCn to condemn or humiliate prohibition
lists, bu5 prohibition Democrats have
every reason TO believe thst coEQCmnG-
tor, numListiOn and os!racism wall fol-
10 " the ssCendancy Of the anti pronibi-
tionsts in shy of these conventions. Some
Ct t1ese same letter writer's declared last
summer n their public speeches that
msI could not be Democrat and pro-
hlblLlCnlsts at the same time, and thst TOO
in the face OF the twelfth plank in the
Democratic platform Of 1886. Entertain
ing suCh views, it is scarcely fair to
suppose that such extremists would
5e impartial in the distribution
Of the pHrsy hOnors. How in
consistent 10 deny man the privilege Of
being $ delegate to the nominating con-
VGItiOn solely because ne voted for pro-
hiti.iOu, ana yet try to make him believe
that he or mis- friends Of the same mind
have any chance Of being nominated for
flee oy that convention. We rather De-
ueVe hist the real object is to pat the ban
Of the Democratic party upon every maa
VINO voted for prohibition.
l. is believed that msjority Of the
Democrats in 8 majority of the Demo-
cratic counties in Texas voted for prohi-
bitiun il 1887, and in view of the COM
mands which have been issued to the
Ants through these several letter writers
to "seek representation in the state con-
YeutiOEs," there Is no course left the
Or IhiDItiCu Democrats but to meet the
Issue, and also TO seek Representa-
lion n al the conventions.
Let US not wait i1r the WirepulIers to
make out slated tickets at the primaries
and cast theic votes solidly, while ours
ore cast wi.lOu: concert Of action. Do
not let designing politicians control the
county conventions and name committees
TO retire ara select delegates TO the state
End congressional conventions, but let Us
demand our rights openly aud publicly
and Snow 10 tn-se extremists that We are
ffoemep, rot slaves.
We have never demanded Of the Demo
CraliG conventions 81 endorsement. Of
but ne 90 demand that 1t
shall La. endorse the liquor traffic. Pro
IS such, have not intended to
make coaceT .e,i effOrt to control the
of This stste, but being fore /!
warned by these letter writer's, self
demands that they shsfl mott
sit idly by, while the prohibi aonists1
in the party assume the reins Of the party |
government. +
There are more than 600, 000l enc hun
dred thousand Democrats in Texas fwho |
vote dior prohibition ia 1887, and they may
will challenge comparison with any
number of the opposition for a uniform
devotion to the principles of the Demo-
cratic party. We are proud OF the great
Democratic party, great in numbers,
great in the victories i. has achieved, !
more numerous by fsr thsn its defeats,
great in the fact that its most trusted |
leaders have ever opposed the proscrip.
tue policy which these letter writer's /
propose by "seeking representation in
the state conventions" great In thatEit
a |