Dodge City times., 1888-01-05
A DEFINITION,
Misunderstanding AS to the Meaning OF the
Word "PrOhibitiOnist."

misunderstanding AS to the Meaning OF the
Word "Prohibitionist."
We have thought, and still think.
that there is much misrepresentation
abroad. as to the definition and under
standing of the word 'Prohibitionist. y"
There are many words that, while not
undergoing a change of meaning. take
on a new application. This is especial
ly true of words having an application
to political issues, and political parties,
caused by the shifting of various
phases of legislation and public de-
manGs.
A word of this kind, that has passed
Though peculiar phases or transitions,
is that of prohibition"
There was time when q person
might very consistently have been
called Prohibitionist, even though he
voted the straight Democratic or
straight Republican ticket. That time
was before the Prohibition party was
formed-or at least before the party
came into the prominence that it is to-
day. At that time the application of
the word had no reference whatever to
party, for the obvious reason that no
Prohibition party existed.
The definition of the word. conse-
quently. was very vague. very Hide
fined, and very general. At that time
Prohibitionist might have been a
person who believed in the principles
of Prohibition, but was at the same
time in the Democrat or Republican
party, and voted the Democrat or Re-
publican ticket, ad infnitum, ad nau-
seam.
To-day. the Prohibition party is or
ganized in nearly every State in the
Union, with the prohibition of the sa-
loon and the liquor traffic as its basic
principle. Neither the Democrat, Re-
publican nor Labor party has taken
up the principle. What they may do,
can not ut this time be considered. We
know that they have not adopted it.
That there are more persons in these
parties that believe that prohibition is
the only remedy against the liquor
traffic, than are at present members of
the Prohibition party is also, irrelevant.
The personal beliefs of few or many
of the members of these parties is
not what fixes the status of the party
in the eyes of the country. This is fixed
by the party platforms and party ac-
tiOns.
AT present the lines between the Pro-
hibition and the other parties are
strictly drawn, because issues are well
defined.
A Prohibitionist twenty years ago
was one who believed in the principle
of prohibition; to-day PrOhibitionist
is one who votes the Prohibition party
ticket.
A very few illustrations will show
that we are not at all arbitrary in this
assertion. As instances. person may
hold to the belief and accept the doc
trines of the Methodist Church. but he
is not considered by that body as being
a Methodist. until he identifies himself
with that organization. But suppose
he refuses to identify himself with
them? Should he be cavil and criticise
them because they have right to say
who are Methodists? He has the same
opportunity of joining that any one in
the church possesses, but if he does not
embrace the opportunity his criticisms
should cease.
In political politics Democrat is
not necessarily one who believes in
the principles of the Democracy. but it
is always and first the deposition of a
Democratic party ballot. So also, it is
with Republicans. The principles of
the individual parties are never ques-
toned or even considered. When |
Democrats and Republicans 60 to the |
primaries or desire party favors they
very readily find out that their princi-
pies are but rarely limited at.
But Democrats and Republicans |
argue, 1--WE believe in prohibition but |
think that there are other questions of
in the country requiring
our consideration.
Whatever OF importance these ques-
tons may be, just to the extent that
they come to be the guide in a PERSONS
principle of action do they lessen his
right to call himself Prohibitionist.
Sentiment is one thing. action is an
other. Believing is the first, voting
that sentiment is the other.
One thing is always noticeable, and
that is that at an election there are
just so many Democrats. SO many Re-
publicans. so many Prohibitionists.
One thing, however. which a great
many persons do not notice, is that
their combined numbers exactly corre-
spond with the number of ballots cast
Democrats, Republicans and Prohi-
bitionists can only be such by virtue of
The ballots they cast as individuals.
Sentiment is all right but sentiment on
he temperance question alienated from
he ballot is all twaddle and gush.
The ballot method of gauging DEM
,crats and Republicans is never ques-
ioned.
Are Prohibitionists asking too much
when they desire the same privilege? ]