The Lambertville record. [volume] (Lambertville, N.J.) 1872-1968, 1888-10-03


modified by local option amendment, in
others 1t remains in force to the present
day. Now, in view of these facts, what
becomes of your conclusions based on the
assumption that there can be no prohibit
tory legislation except by Prohibition
Party?
Further since the organization of the
Prohibition Party Local Option prohibit
tory laws have been enacted in New DER
sey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi Louisiana
Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas
and Missouri-fifteen states. How much,
or rather how little, the Prohibition
Party had to do in securing this legisla-
ton is indicated by the fact that in the
states mentioned, ia 1884, out of total
vote of 3,205,524 the Prohibition candi-
date for the Presidency received 81, SIS
votes--that is, vote out of every 1850.
Again ask in view of these facts, what
becomes of the conclusion based on the
assumption that there can be no prohibit
tory legislation except by political
party specially organized for that pur-
pose ?
The question, as to the erpediencQ of
Prohibition Party has Also as it seems to
me, been settled, By Tie test Of experiment.
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 the prohibitory legis-
lation been due to the Prohibition Perty.
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
prohibitory law has ever been cast
by legislator elected by the Prohibition
Party. The only effect on the party as
factor in politics, in the Northern States,
has been to draw off votes from the party
in which we are mainly indebted for pro.
hibitory legislation and thus occasionally
elect the candidates of the party avowed-
ly opposed to prohibitory legislation.
The Prohibition party is rather hinder
ance than help to the cause of Prohibit
ton. That it is inexpedient, if not in
deed positively harmful, is the deliberate
and expressed Judgment of the great
mass of pronounced Prohibitionists of
the country. The statement has recently
been published that an examination of
statistics made by the President of the
State Temperance Alliance of Iowa shows
that not more than one in forty of the
Prohibitionists of the country are mem.
bers of the Prohibition Party. The fol.
lowing figures show that this is no exag-
geration. The three representative Pro-
hibition States are Maine, Kansas and
Iowa. In these States Prohibition has
been adopted by decided majorities.
And yet in 1884 out of total vote in
these states of 77l,2l0 the Prohibition
candidate for the Presidency received
just $500 votes that is, vote out OF 80.
Surprising Prohibition adopted in these
states by bare majority, the Prohibition
candidate received but one vote out of
every 40 pronounced Prohibilionists.
This result is highly significant, and
yet it is not surprising. 1t is just what
might have been anticipated; and what
may be anticipated in the future. And
for this simple reason Prohibition Party
ticket submits the question Of Prohibition
NTH Prohibition Handicapped. The great
mass of voters have very decided convic-
tions on other important political issues.
Many, for instance, feel that their finan.
cial interests, 1t may be the means of sup
port for themselves aud their families
their bread and butter--depend upon
protective tariff. Many feel that their
material interests would be promoted by
Free Trade. Many feel that important
interests of the nation are imperled by
having the Federal Government CONTROL
ed by those lately in rebellion. Many
have very decided convictions on the
question of woman suffrage" Now
the Prohibition Party brings the question
to the ballot-box in way that requires
the voter to ignore his convictions, how
ever decided, and all other political ques-
tions however important or however they
may affect his personal interests, aud this,
too, when 1t is entirely practicable to sub
nit the question untrammeled by any
other political or personal consideration.
Now this, to say the least, is unwise. When
a man about to enter race puts on clogs
or gets into a sack, it is taken for granted
that whatever other object he may have
in running, 1t is not TO win the race. One
who enters to win obeys the Scriptural in
junction to ''lay aside every weight
Our Prohibition Party brethren might
learn wisdom in this matter from the
enemy, the rumsellers. Their different
policies are but another illustration that
1.-THE children of this world are wiser in
their generation than the children of
light" The rumselers could poll much
larger vote than the party Prohbitionists.
Yet they do not organize themselves into
Liquor Party" and nominate "Liquor
Party" candidates. They know that to
do so would only render them powerless
at the ballot-box. Instead of this they
organize Personal Liberty Leagues"
and in the interest of their traffic work
within the lines Of the existing parties in
whatever way win be most likely to at
tain their end, and at the ballotbox they
recognize but one principle of action-to
put their gotes sohere they nil do The most
good for their cause need not tell you
how powerful is the influence they in this
way exert. Rumsellers may be wicked,
but in this matter they are not unwise
In your "5th consideration" you say :