Dodge City times. [volume] (Dodge City, Kan.) 1876-1892, 1888-06-28

favor submitting thlS question 10
vote of the people and have in every
case sternly refused. This endangers
the liberties of the people and institutes
party despotiSm, administered by the
servants (the officers depriving the
soyerignS (the people, Of their inalien-
able rights.
The above arguments if successfully
met viii stop the progress of ':third
partyism, . viii insure republican per
petuity. will elect the next republican
president, will turn 100, 900 democrats
out of Office and turn as many repub,
licans in, will do more than anything
else to save the G. O. P. from sinking
beneath the waves Of the coming tide
Of public opinion.
Who will meet them? Taunts, jeers
or epithets will not do. 1t must DC
done with logical fairness and truths
I do not say that some one in this
city will not meet them. But l do say
that | am reader of republican party
papers, and have been all my life; and
| have never seen anywhere an answer,
nor an attempted answer to these prop.
osltions, though they have been before
the country, in one form and another
for several years.
The "Anti saloon and 'Into-saloon
republican forces met at Chicago to
test their relative strength and nomin-
ate a president. The latter was SO
hopelessly defeated that the name OF
its leader, Albert Griffin, is as ignomin
ious in the ears Of the "Into' s. as tina;
of St. John. ''Let EN- fight" we adj
mire the courage of the anti s. but
we would have as much faith in the
conversion of the devil as in the theory
that the Unto s. will cease to domi-
nate the republican party and to dictate
its policies.
Time will bring the death of any par
tv that seeks to live on the animosities
of the past.
We wonder how the anti-saloon re-
publicans feel since the convention at
Chicago snubbed them so numerically.
Did the republican party say any
thing new IN their platform? Did they
speak Of prohibition? What are we to
understand from their official utterances
that they will do with this question?
Is IT NOT STRANGE?
The Topeka Capital has this to say
concerning the failure of the democrat
ic party to plainly announce their prln-
ciples in their platform of 1888:
is 1t not strange that this party
which had votes enough four years ago
to elect its candidate for president and
expects to repeat the act this year,
cannot set forth in plain language what
its membership means? If they mean
purely revenue tariff, why do they
not say SO without equivocation? If
they want as low a tariff as will afford
sufficient protection to American indus
tries, why do they not say so plainly?
If they favor protective principle, it
would be very easy to say so; and if
they are opposed to that principle, the
fact could be stated in half dozen
words. Instead of plainness, however,
we have this three-faced hypocrisy
which, as usual, will be protection in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, free
trade in Texas and Kentucky, and half
and-half every where else. ,:
Now this is plain sensible talk. But
let us apply it to the republicans as
well. as 1t not strange that a party
which had votes enough to elect its
candidate for president for twenty
four years "and expect to repeat that
act this year cannot set forth in plain
language what its membership means?"
IF they mean prohibition "why do
they not say so without equivocatio n?'
If they favor the protection of the
liquor tariff ''why do they not say so
plainly? If they favor prohibition cit
would be very easy to say SO; and 'if
they are opposed to that principle the
fact could be stated in half dozen
words ''lnstead of plainness how
ever we have the threefaced hypocrisy,
which as usual will be- prohibition in
Kansas, Iowa and Maine; protection to
the liquor interests in New York, Illinois
and Ohio "and half-and-half every
where else.
The republican party still endeavors
to keep up its policy of hypocrisy, and
the democratic party is keeping it,
company this time.