Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1888-10-12
THE TEMPERANCE PARTY.
The Prohfbitionists Shown to Have
Steadily Hindered the Prohibition
Cause.

Prof. j. T. Dufnld, d. D., of Princeton
asks the question fought temperance
men to vote with the third party: in tht
! last Independent, and answers it in ths
negative. He SAYS:
Whether Prohibition party is tbs
only way to secure prohibitory legisia
ton is not question of theory, to be de
cided by reasoning; it is simple ques
ton Of fact, to be decided by reference
to the record.
'The Prohibition party was organized
in 1863. Prior to 1869 prohi5itory law
had been enacted in Maine, New Hamp-
shire, Vermont, Massachusetts,, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, Della.
ware, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan
Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas
that Is, in sixteen states. Ny author.
ity for this statement is, 1.-THE World
Almanac" for 1887. In some OF
these states the law was de-
clared unconstitutional, in others
it was subsequently, repealed, in others
modified by local option amendment, in
others it 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 prohibi-
tory legislation except by Prohibition
party?
Further, since the organization of the
Prohibition party local option prohibi-
tory laws have been enacted III New
Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Caro-
lima, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi,
Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Arkansas and Missouri-ffteen states.
How much, or rather how little, the Pro-
hibltion party had to do in securing this
legislation in indicated by the fact that
in the states mentioned, in 1884, out of a
total vote of 2,105, 1874, the Prohibition
candidate for the presidency received
81 ,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 prohibitory legislation except by a
political party specially organized for
that purpose?
I'm Maine, Kansas and Iowa prohibit
ton has been adopted by decided major
tiles. And yet in 1884, out of a total
vote in these states of 1,219, the Pro-
hibitjon candidate for the presidency re-
ceived Just 1856 votes-that is, l vote
out of So Supposing prohibition adopt
ed in these states by bare majority, the
Prohibition candidate received but one
vote out of every IS pronounced prohi-
bitionists.
'The question as to the expediency of
a Prohibition party has also, as it seems
to me. been settled by the test of expert
ment
1.-THE party has been in existence for
nearly twenty years. Prohibitory laws
have been passed in thirty-one of the
thirty eight states of the union In no
single instance has this protibitory legis-
lation 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 Prohibitionists. So far
as | am informed, not single vote for a
law has ever been cast by a
legislator elected by the Prohibition
party. The only effect of the party as
factor in politics, in the northern states,
has been to draw off votes from the party
to which we are mainly indebted for pro-
legislation and thus occasionally
elect the candidates of the party avow-
edly opposed to prohibitory legislation.
The Prohibition party, therefore, is rather
a hindrance than help to the cause of
Prohibition -