The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1888-10-11
THE TEMPERANCE PARTY.
The ProhibltionIsts Shown to Have
Steadily hIndered the ProhlbI-
ton Cause.

Prof. J. I. Dufdld, d. d., Of Princeton,
asks the question fought Temperance men
to vote W ith the third party9" in the last In
dependent, and answer it in the negative
He says:
Whether Prohibition party Is the only
way to secure prohibitory legislation is not
question Of theory, to be decided by reason
ing; 1t Is simple question Of fact, to be de-
cided by reference to the record
The Prohibition party was organized In
1862 Prior to 1869 q prohibit0ry law had
been enacted in Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, MASSACHUSETTS,. Rhode Island. Con-
necticut, New York, Delaware, Ohio, In-
diana, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota,
Nebraska and Kansas-that Is, in sixteen
States. My authority for this statement Is,
THE World Almanac" for 1887. In some OF
these States the law was declared uneonstI-
tutional, In others ii was subsequently re-
pealed, in others modified by local option
amendment, In others ii 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 pro-
hlbitory legislation except by Prohibition
Further, since the organization Of the
Prohibition Party local option prohibitOry
laws have been enacted in New Jersey,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Ge0r-
gia, Alabama, Mississippi. Louisiana, Texas,
souri, fifteen States. How much, or rather
how little, the Prohibition Party mad to do
iu securing this legislation is indicated by
the fact that in the States mentioned, in 1884,
out OF total vote of :, ,205, ,524, the Prohibition
candidate for the Presidency received 21,57S
votes-that Is, one vote out Of every $50.
Again | ask, in view OF these facts, what
becomes Of the conclusion based on the as
sumption that there can be no prohibitory
legislation except by a political party es-
peciallv organized for that purpose 9''
I'm Maine, Kansas and Iowa, prohibition
has been adopted by decided majorities. And
yet In 1884, out of total vote in these States
Of ~, ,219, the Prohibition candidate for the
Presidency received just 1863 votes-that Is,
l vote out Of 90. Supposing prohibition
adopted in these States by bare majority,
the Prohibition candidate received but one
vote out Of every 45 pronounced Prohibition
lists
'The question as to the expedieney of a
prohibition party has also, as 1t seems TO me,
been settled by the test Of experiment.
The party has been in existence for near
~ twenty years: Prohibitory laws have
been passed in thirty-one Of the thirty-eight
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 rumsellers and party prohibitionists. So
far as am informed. not single vote for
prOhibtory law has ever been cast by leg
islator elected by the Prohibition party. The
only effect of the party as a factor in politics
in the Northern States, has been to draw of
votes from the party TO which we are mainly
indebted for prohibitory legislati'.n "A and thus
occasionally elect the candidates VI the par
ty av0wedly opposed to prohibitory legisla
tiOn. The Prohibition party, therefore, Is
rather hindrance than help to the cause
Of Prohibition"