Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1888-12-22

prohibition, and cannot be placed in that
position without palpable insincerity or
duplicity on the part OF the convention. -
New York 7ri5ame, Oct. II, 1887: "Pro-
hibition brings train of evils with it
which threaten the manhood and indie
pendence OF the people more seriously
than the drink evil ITSELF
Cincinnati Commercial Gazette. Feb. Z,
1887: "The Republican party must not
and shall not become prohibition party.
Those who are in it simply to make it so
might as well go at once, for they will
not succeed"
Cincinnati Commercial Gazette, August
%, 1855: Hundreds of saloons in Ohio
are substantially Republican club
houses"
Francis E. Willard asked the Republi-
can national convention in 1884 to grant
the ". G. T. Z. protection to the homes.
Her petition, signed by several thousand,
was found next day covered with tobacco
spit. It now can be seen in the Chicago
Historical society. She was refused
Yet Mr.. Shepard wonders why she and
the rest Of the w. G. T. Q. are jumping
at shadows.
In passing along the streets of Lcgans-
port, Monticello, Rochester, Winnamac,
Peru and dozen cities in Indiana, saw
the picture Of J. Ellen Foster, of Iowa,
pasted to saloon windows. In Kansas
City and other large and small towns in
Missouri, in Chicago and many other
towns in Illinois and Indiana I saw
Harrison and Morton's pictures, in coIors,
decorating saloon windows. wonder if
the political move of the third party
received the well-earued plaudits of these
saloon keepers If it did it was because
the third party became a Republican
annex, for they were not Democratic sa-
loon keepers.
he says the Republican party is tenn
perance party, and temperance legislation
has occurred where the Republican ma
iorities are the largest. Well, here is
another sweeping statement and no proof
to back it. He may be correct; let he
see about it. The following states adopt
ed prohibition while under Republican
control:
New York, (Rep. and K. NJ 1855.
Michigan, 1866.
New Hampshire, Rep. and K. NJ 1866.
Maine, 1883
Massachusetts, 1869.
Rhode Island, 1874.
Kansas. 1881.
Iowa, 1884,.
Rhode Island, 1856.
Nine states-1 duplicate.
The following states dropped prohi-
bition while under Republican control:
New York. 1856.
Iowa, 1856.
Indiana. 1858.
Rhode Island, 1863.
Nebraska Ter. 1869.
Massachusetts. 1865.
Connecticut, 1872.
Massachusetts, 1879.
Michigan, 1875.
Rhode Island, 1875.
10 states-2 duplicates.
The following states adopted prohi-
bition under Democratic control:
Maine, 1916.
GO 1851
Illinois, 1851.
Minnesota Ter, 1852.
Michigan. 1858.
Ohio, 1854
Iowa, 1856.
Indiana. 1856.
Nebraska, 1885.
Mississippi. 1855.
Texas, 1855.
IL states-1 duplicate.
The following states dropped prohi-
Dition while under Democratic control:
Illinois, 1853.
Maine, 1856.
Pennsylvania, 1856.
Ohio, 1856
4 states.
The Democrats did their work 80 years
ago. The Republicans have given pro-
1ibition in 9 states and repealed it in 10
states. That resembles an stair line
too.
Since 1856 there have been 20 states,
including duplicates that adopted pro-
,ibition and Is that dropped it. 3 were
pronounced unconstitutional by supreme
courts made up of both parties. 8 re-
naming yet under Republican control.
This argues that the Democratic party
has adopted prohibition in states, Of
which were dropped by the Republicans.
He says the bulk of the third party
work was done in New York, Indiana,
Connecticut and New Jersey, yet his own
igures show that the bulk of the work
vas done in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan,
New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
II this party is and always was a tenn
,erance party, why, during the d years
# its administration did it permit saloons
n Washington City, District of Columbia,
senate chamber, territories, military posts,
tic, and foster growth of 500 per cent.
n saloon interests.
He also states that the party will soon
Ne numbered AMONG the dead He iS