Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1888-10-13
TEE INJURIOUS INFLUENCE OF
THE THIRD PARTY
It u Shown to Have Hindered the
Cause OF Prohibition,

Prof. j. I. Duffield, D. D., OF Prince
ton, \. j., asks the question sought Tenn
perance men to vote for the Third Party -
in the last Independent, and answer it in
the negative. He says:
whether a Prohibition Party is the only
way to secure prohibitory legislation is not a
question of theory, to be decided by reason
ing; it is simple question Of fact, to be
decided by reference to the record.
THE Prohibition Party was organized in
1868. Prior to 1869 prohibitory Law had
been enacted in Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Massa chusetts, Rhode Island,
Connecticut, New York, Delaware, Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota,
Nebraska and kansas-that is, in sixteen
states. Ny authority for this statement is,
The World Almanac" for 1887. In some
of these States the law was declared un-
constitutional, in others it was subsequently
repealed in others modified by local option
amendment, in others il remains in force to
the present day. Now, in view of these
facts, what becomes of your conclusion
based on the assumption that there can be
no prohibitory legislation except by Pro-
hibition party?
Further, since the organization of the
Prohibition party local option prohibitory
laws have been enacted in New Jersey
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina. Geor-
gia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and Mis-
souri--iifteen States. How much, or rather
how little, the Prohibition Party had to do
in securing this legislation is indicated by
the fact that in the States mentioned, in
1884, out of total vote of 3 ,205, 524, the
Prohibition candidate for the Presidency re-
ceived q 57s votes-that is, one vote out of
every $50. Again | ask, in view of these
facts, what becomes of the conclusion based
on the assumption that there can be no pro-
hibitory Legislation except by a political
party specially organized for that purpose z"
ain Maine, Kansas and Iowa, prohibition
has been adopted by decided maiorties
And yet in 1884, out of total vote in these
States of 7l,2l9, the Prohibition candidate
for the Presidency received just 1863 votes
that is, vote out of 80. Surprising Pro-
hibition adopted in these States by bare
majority, the Prohibition candidate received
but one vote out of every 40 pronounced
Prohibtionists.
The question as to the expediency of a
Prohibition Party, has also, as it seems to
me, been settled by the test Of experiment.
THE party has been in existence for near
ly twenty years. Prohibitory laws have
been passed in thirty-one of the thirty ight
States of the Union. In no single instance
has this prohibitory legislation been due to
the Prohibition party. In most cases these
laws have been passed by legislators elected
in spite Of the opposition at the ballot box of
rum-sellers and party Prohbitionists. So
far as | am informed, not a single vote for a
prohibit0ry law has ever been cast by legis-
lator elected by the Prohibition Party. The
only effect of the party factor in poll
tics, III the Northern States has been to
draw off votes from the party to which we
are mainly indebted for prohibitory legisla-
ton and thus occasionally elect the candi-
dates of the party avowedly opposed to pro-
Gibiory legislation. The Prohibition Party
therefore is rather hindrance than a help
to the cause of Prohibition.