Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1888-05-25

moral philosophy, would like to ask one of
them what is the difference between virtue"
and "moral attainment? III the student
finds 1t difficult to make IA distinction would
suggest Uebsfer under the word "tautology."
Here is another sentence at Uemperance)
should keep its abode IN the free soil OF the
Christian heart, that it may go forth and truly
conquer in the slave territory of the unregen-
crate man and the unregenerate nation"
This sentence nj first puzzled me- won
dered how "principle could Keep ITS abode
in the free soil of he Chritian heart
and grow there tiguratively like plant or
tree would grow in our gardens and be there
in order to suddenly change and go forth like
mailed warrior ITO conquer IN the slave ter
ritory of unrcgcnerate man." Then thought
of Rhoderick Dhu, who by n
"Whstle garrisOned the glen
AT once with full five hundred men,
And PUSHES and the willow wand
Are bristling into axe and brand"
hope the writerof the rcioinder Will be on
hand TO whistle. Most textbooks on Rhetoric
have n heading entitled "mixed metaphors"
Well, enough OF this.
Now for the "Third or Prohibition Party"
II is the image of this party that bring feel
iings of holy horror to the writer of the IRE,
ioinder" Every mention of the Third
Party" seems to throw him into convulslons,
uiid lie loses his head, "principlc" and all.
If that is not the case, how is 1t possible to
account Tor such u sentiment or utterance rs
this? "They should create Il principle to sus.
tain good righteous party" gentlemen of
the jury, imagine man or number OF men
deliberately sitting down to "credte principle
the name of common sense ever heard of a
party's organization before ii had princi-
pie! Does not any school boy know that Il
principle always was and always will be, for
thinking men, the center around which and
by which party gathers; Will the author of
the Reioinder" name a single party in this
country any other, in church or in state,
that has come into existence without prin-
ciple! Which is first, party or principles
The principle always and forever. Hence, IL
one set OF men does not rally to Il principle
another set Will, If the principle has enduring
vitality. If there are Earthquakes which do
not rally TO that principle, then the only safe
and wise thing to do is to create n party that
will take the principle and carry it forward.
That has been the history of Il large majority
OF all reforms in church or state. Will the
author OF "Reioinder" deny this? The "com-
nilsson from both heaven ana earth" for the
formation OF party that will destroy the
liquor traffic by enacting and enforcing prOhi.
bition laws is given to US, because the Repub-
lican and Democratic parties are in league
with the rum power, the one covertly, the
other openly. The Democratic party pleads
guilty-we need do nothing with that in this
connection. Now tor the Republican party
please bearin mind do not arraign this party
in any Udy or for anything except its record
ana present attitude on the question OF the
prohibition OF the liquor traffic. leave what
Mr.. Penniman said or did not say TO that gen
tleman. | presume he can take care of him.
self. The "Rejoinder' referred us to Massa-
chusetts rs an illustration of the wicked work
OF the Prohibitionists. This is his utterance
"Recently in Massachusetts the Prohlbitory
party by helping to elect Democrats to the
legislature defeated the submission of IA pro
hibitory amendment to the people tor which
Republicans the previous year had voted"
Why did not the "Rejoinder' tell us the year
in which the wicked Third party did this
bloody execution? Why say "recently?" SO
then il was the fault of the Third party that a
bill submitting II prohibitory amendment to
the vote of the people tailed in Massachusetts.
Is that so? When did this occur? That we
were not told suppose it was the fault of
the Third party men that such an amendment
Jailed to pass the Massachusetts Legislature in
l>s?3, also in lsSS4 also in lesl-5. Tell us,
writer of the Reioindcr. II is hard to be dig.
nifed in dealing with such sophistry and ba
byism. The tact is that with very rare eX-
ceptions the Massachusetts Legislature has for
years been Overwhelmingly Republican and
that party has had things its own way in that
state, even when shrewd, grutf old Ben. But
ter was governor. Take the first above
named legislature, 1923: it was Republican
by more than 100 majority and in that very
year ~ RepuDlicans, more than Il third of the
members OF the party, voted against bill to
submit the question to the vote OF the people.
The republican party and every professcdly
temperance man in ii ought to be ashamed OF
his party's record in Massachusetts on the
temperance question. The first prohibitory
statute i'll Massachusetts was enacted in ls52
with Democratic, Wing and Free Soil legis
lature and Il Democratic governor. This was
before the Republican, party was born 1t
stood on the books until ls67-twelve years
when the Republicans repealed ii and from
that time to the present they have played fast
and loose with temperance legislation in the
ola Bay state. And now, during the present
year, the Republican State of Massachusetts
has more retail liquor dealers than Alabama,
Georgia, North and south Carolina, Tennessee
and Florida combined. The Republican State
OF Massachusetts has one liquor dealer tor
every % voters. This condition of things
gave Mr. Louis schade, when n member OF "A
Republican administration, the opportunity
to congratulate the brewers convention on
the progress of their business and to say
"Massnchusetts, the land of the Pilgrims, moi
only drinks, but she drinks hard, 30 glasses OF
beer per head during the year. hassachu
sets drinks rs much beer as Ohio and Wis
consin." other good, strong Republican states
SO much tor Massachusetts.
How about the state OF New York. Here is
what the "Rejoinder' says: "The same tao.
ties pursued in Massachusetts, by the Third
party men have been followed in New York -
We do not get any specific charge here There
i but little to catch hold Of But we are will
ling to take what there is. What are the
facts: In lSS3 the Republicans were in mi
nority in the assembly. During that year
they held Il state convention at Litchiield
springs. This was one of the resolutions
I'VE believe in the wisdom OF the people in
deciding all questions pertaining to the pub.
lie welfare and would acccde to the desire OF
large body OF our citizens to submit to the
voters OF the State constitutional amendment
in regard to the manufacture and sale OF in.
toXicating liquors." That fall the Republic
cans, gained control of the assembly by a
handsome majority How did they redeem
their platform pledge: just the same rs thcil
brother Republicans did in Massachusetts. 1t
was voted down and out in both houses
the measure was Mr.. Roosevelt, the leader OF
his party. There were Is Republican votes
against the bill OF Mr. DIN. the champion OF
the Prohibitionists. The Republican party as
"A party has not made one serious effort to
cripple the liquor power in New York state in
amy recent year OF which know, This is
what Rev. Theodore Cuyler said in an address
to the Republican party "lour convention
nj ChicrgO refused to submit to the people the
question OF the protection from the liquor
traffic your candidate deliberately lodged
the question OF prohibition AT the polls in Au
gusta and then his friends ask us to sustain
him. You put into your platform last yeal
(lss3) in the State of New York IA pledge to
submit the question OF prohibition to the PEG
pie and your Republican Legislature violated
that pledge" These are the words of Il life
long friend OF the Republican party. The
author of the "Rejoinder," calls me and those
who think as ! do "false to principle" and
says we are "doing more harm than good
because we refuse in all conscience and cor
rect reason to sustain party that deliberate
| ~ hands over our interests to our enemies
Think OF the lofty conception OF duty PLACED
before us by a teacher OF ethics, who calls Us
"talse to principle" because we do not in ig
norance or purpose. go with party bounC
hand and foot by the liquor power. No. sir. this
Mordecai will not bow to the nefarious Ha
man of the liquor traffic.
\ word in conclusion. | did not begin thi,
discussion; but now that II is on | say will
/ S1i nh ahur tn l,.,x nr.lG .Nfk