Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-04-20
FIGHTING BACK.
Col. ThOs. z, BOnnsr's Reply TO The
"HeGrt Of Oak" Ady0catOs-He
Advises COunteractIon.
Shall tho Counsels of Democracy be Dis
turbed by au Issue Buried UHder
1OO, 200 Majority.

TYLER, TEX, April 1S, 1855.
To the Editor Of the Gazette.
1t has become quite the fashion OF late
for prominent anti-prohibition Demo-
crsts to receive letters from their friends
asking for an expression of opinion touch
ing the future course Of the Democratic
parry in Texas upon the question Of pro-
hibitisn, thereby giving an opportunity to
have their views published at length. l
have not received such letter, but by
way of giving little variety to the publ
cations, 1 present the other side of the
question.
There seems to be precoT certed effort
on the part of those who have written
from the anti standpoint: to create the im-
preston that the defeat OF prohibition in
Texas in 1887 WIGS an overwhelming Dem
ocratic triumph, whereas the returns
show that the Republican towns and
count in the st&te gave large MAORI
ties against prohibition, Wills the Demo-
cratic counties either gave msjorities for
prohibition or came so close as TO leave
in doubt the character OF vote given by
the Democrats exclusively.
These letter writers, assuming that
the election OF 1887, was Democratic
triumph, declare it to be the duty of the
Democratic party to inse the "hesrt OF
oak" plank in the next state platform.
They urge upon anti prohibition Demo-
Gratis ell over Texas to "seek represents
ton In the state conventions" and in the
ssme connection declare hat there is nc
purpose In this to discriminate against
Prohibitions in the distribution Of
party hOnors" The very fact that anti
Prohibitionists, IS such, are urged 10
f'seek representation in the state con-
ventions" is, In itself, an attempt st dis
elimination, unless to be delegate to s
state convention be not deemed q psrty
honor.
The proposition is to ignore mans
views on the tariff, on the Blair bill, on
the direct tax bill, on the reduction OF
Internal revenue, on the question of CEN
tralized power in the federal government,
but to determine his claims to q seat in
the state convention upon the one idea
that he is an anti Prohibitionist.
The prohibition Democrats have moi
desired 10 bring on this contest within
the party, but there seems to be no al err
native. As the anti prohibition leaders
have thus publicly declared their purpose
TO seize possession OF the state cOnVen-
tons, 1t becomes the duty of the prohlol-
ton Democrats to meet the Issue Vlsor-
ously. 1t is their duty TO attend the prl-
mares, and Zee that their views are re-
nected In the delegates elected 10 the
county conventions. Let them be watch
fnl a. the primaries and keep out the R5'
Publican allies, VINO alone gave victory TO
the antis Ia 1887. II prohibition is to oe
tho sole Issue, then the pros should see
to 1t that none but prohibition Democrats
are elected to the national, state, con
gre ssionAl, senatorial and representative
conventions,
Gentiemen may write with a kind Of So
rene dignity about their being no inten
ton to condemn or humiiiAte prohibition
lists, but prohibition Democrats have
every reason TO believe thai GOndemnA-
ton, humiliation anu ostraCism VIII tol-
low the AscandAney of the AnIi-prohibl-
tionists In any of these conventions. Some
Of these same letter writer's declared last
summer Ia thslr public speeches that a
man could not be Democrat and pro-
hibltiunlsts AZ the same time, and thai 500
in the face OF the twelfth plank Ia ths
\ Democratic platform OF 1885 EasertAin-
ing such views, Ii Is scarcely ialr "
suppose that such extremists would
bs Impartial In the distribution
ii the party honors. How In,
epnsisteat to deny man the privilege o.
being delegate to the nominating con-
yention solely because he voted Tor pro-
hihiiion, and yet tIy 10 make ain psileys