Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1888-09-28
IhE IRuE WAY.


The last Independent contains a racy
and solid open letter from Prof. Duffield
of the college of New jersey to DIR.
Deems of New York. DIR. Deems is a
third-party follower and seems to have
written DR.. Duffield inquiring whether,
in the latter's opinion, he did the best
thing he could for the advancement of
the temperance cause by adhering to that
party. DIR. Duffield answers the query
in the negative and points out to his
friend where he is wrong. In the first
place, DR.. Duffield does not believe that
the organization of distinctively pro-
hibition party is the only way to secure
prohibitory legislation. This, he says,
sis not question of theory to be decided
by reasoning it is a simple question of
fact to be decided by reference to the
record" That record he reviews and
finds that, while the third party had no
existence up to 1869, prior to that time
prohibitory laws had been enacted in six
teen States. Again, he discovers that
option prohbitory laws have been enact
ed in fifteen States; but he thinks the
third party had little to do with their en-
actment in view of the fact that in these
205,524, the Prohibition candidate for the
presidency got but 21 ,57S votes, "that is,
one vote out of 150."
The problem of the expediency of the
third party has also "been settled by the
test of experience" "The only effect of
the party as factor in politics, in the
Northern States" DR.. Duffield continues,
''has been to draw off from the party to
which we are mainly indebted for pro-
hibitory legislation" "'The Prohibition
party is therefore a hindrance rather
than a help to prohibition. That it is in
eXpedient, if indeed not positively harm
full, is the deliberate and expressed iudg-
ment of the great mass of pronounced
prohibitionists of the country" The lat
ter statement is proved he contends. by
the figures of the vote in 1884 in the three
representative prohibition States. Maine.
Kansas and Iowa. all of which have
adopted prohibition; and yet out of the
III ,2l9 votes they cast for President only
S,569-One out of 90-went for st. John.
These are but part of the facts adduced
and conclusions stated by DR.. Duffield.
The last of them is: at is the duty of
every citizen who is in favor of prohib-
tion to become an active member of a
No Party Anti-Liquor league" In
support of this position he says:
After more than thirty years of discus
sion and experiment the prohibitiOnists
Of the country are coming to the conclu-
sion that the policy just mentioned is the
most practicable and efficient for the
suppression of the traffic in Intoxicating
beverages. Its adoption is rapidly eX-
tending and with most satisfactory re-
suits. If the zeal manifested by party
PrOhibitiOnists to secure votes for their
party candidates, without any prospect
of their election, were eXerted for prOhib-
ition as members of a No-Party Anti
Liquor league, their influence for the
suppression of intemperance and the lum
traffic would be immensely increased.
we nave recently nau III princeton a
striking illustration of the comparative
efficiency of the Prohibition party policy
and that of No-Party Anti-Liquor
league. At the State election in Novem-
Der last, the Prohibition party in Prince
ton polled just fourteen votes-of course
accomplishing nothing except to make
the impression, where the facts were not
known, that there was an overwhelming
majority in our community against pro
hibitiOn. At our municipal election in
April, through the influence of a No.
Party Anti Liquor league, including
among its active members party-prohib
itionists-a "No-License'' ticket, com
posed entirely of Republicans and Demo
Gratis, was nominated. And what was
the result? The 'NO-License" ticket re-
ceived 425 votes and was elected by &
majority of 100.