Smyrna times., 1888-11-21
The Third Party.
A POLITICAL PARALLEL.

In the political campaign inst closed
the prohibition Party has distinguished
lIseiI Ior It's illogical and impracticable
position. When told that it was hurt
ing the cause of Prohibition by allying
itself with the Democratic Party and
drawing votes from the only party
which has ever done anything for tenn
perance, here in the North, at least. the
constant answer has been, We are
working for the future we are doing
for temperance what the dispised and
weak Liberty Party and Free Soil
Party did for abolition. If the parallel
| holds good they have right to sacri-
iice the Republican Party to the future.
But it does not hold good as we have
abundantly shown. 1t is their notion
that the present Republican Party is to
the Prohibition Party what the Whi0
Party was to the Liberty Party. But
there is no parallel whatever. What
mad the Whig Party, as such, done for
antl-slavery just nothing. 1t had
talked and not voted. 1t had talked
very feebly and Intellectually. There
was no party that was doing anything
1or antl-slavery when the great Whig
leader, Webster, was supporting the
Fugitive Slave Law. But the case is
utterly different with the matter of
temperance. State after state, under
Republican control, has passed strin.
gent prohibition laws or laws severely
restricting the sale of LIQUOR. If the
Wing Party had done the tithe for
antl-slavery that the Republican PARTY
mas done for temperance there would
never have been a Liberty Partv. and
the Whig Party would have gloriousIv
carried through the War of the Rebel
lion.
But another very interesting point of
difference between the policy of the
present PrOhibitiOnists and the old
Liberty Party men is seen in the atti-
Iude OF the two toward restriction. The
Liberty Party men were practical men.
They took all they could get They
made steps forward just as fast as thew
could. They did not ask for universal
abolition of slavery and refuse to take
anything less. They kept on restrict
ing more and more as fast as they could.
They fought caste laws one by one. If
they could not abolish slavery in the
United States, they would shut it out
OF this bit of territory and that. and
hem it in as rapidly and closely as they
could. Their rule was to get all theY
could to 60 step at a time and hold
their ground. But it has been the Policy
OF the PrOhibitionists to ask everything
and take nothing less. They want
Constitutional Prohibition; and prohi-
bition by local option, or restriction
which simply diminishes the number
OF gateways Of He'll, they have no in
terest in. What would the Liberty
Party and Free Soil men have ever
done if they had demanded a constitu-
tional amendment prohibiting slavery?
such folly would never have accom-
plished anything. But they were prac-
tlcal people, and they grew. The Third
Party is composed, mainly, of imprac-
ticables, who will not take anything
unless they can have the whole loaf
baked in their own oven. The Ameri-
can people have no taste for that sort
of policy, and that is the reason for the
slow growth of the Third Party. 1t is
not needed. 1t is, at least, hindrance
to true reform. m.--NeIU York Independent.