Western Kansas world., 1888-09-08


You Forget 1t!
Hon. A. B. setmore has made public the
letter which follows, being q reply to an in
vitation from George w. Hall, of Chapman,
Kansas, inviting him to address the people
of that locality on the subject of prohibi-
ton:
TOPEKA. KAN, Sept. I, 1883.
Ge,. w. Hall, Esq.. Chapman. Kan.
DEAR SIR-YOurs OF 18th inst, inviting
me to address your good people on prohibit
tion is received, and after thanking you for
the distinguished consideration and conf
dence expressed therein, beg leave to state:
That my opinion on the question of prohi-
bition. and its relation to the politics of
the country, has undergone noI change.
When in 1882, my prohibition friends
SO kindly and with unanimity which i'm
pressed me no little, and from the consider
alton of which, if at all, would have con-
ceded to their desires, rendered me the NOM
ination for governor of this state, l said
then, and I have no reason to change my
mind, that all that has been done in: this
state, as also elsewhere throughout the
country, for prohi bition has been done by
the republican party; and that party is q
friend to prohibition, while. the democratic
party is its implacable enemy. The states
which have adopted constitutional or
statutory prohibition are republican states,
while not q single democratic state has done
either.
The temperance decisions which compose
part of the legal literature of the country,
both state and national, have emenated
from the courts of last resort. the majority
of whose members are republican in poll
tics. You will agree with me when I say
that the attitude and tendency of the repub-
lican party is unfavorable, aye, unfriendly
toward that principle. And think you will
further agree with me when state that the
candidate of one or the other of these par
ties will be elected president of the United
States next November. Then if the facts I
have enumerated above be true, under the
administration of which party would be the
better for the cause of prohibition? Under
the republican party, which is not un-
friendly and has done something for prohi-
which is unfriendly and has done nothing
for prohibition?
Besides, if the democratic party should
prevail, by the end of another presidential
term, the ages of the members of the United
States supreme court are such that change
is most likely to occur in that court. Of
course, in such an event. if we are to Judge
from the past, the vacancies would be filled
with democrats, and that, too, for life. Now
probability that the recent decisions of that
court, favorable to our rrohibitory law, and
which has given us SO much satisfaction,
may be reversed and others made more in
keeping with the sentiment of the democ-
racy, which is opposed to prohibition, and
all ''sumptuary iaws?"
And while some of our prohibition
friends may truly think that the republican
party has not done as much for prohibition
as it should have done, yet it has done more
for it than has the democracy. To secure
national prohibition, would require an
amendment of the constitution of the
United States, which only can be done when
ratified by three-fourths of the states. Now
how long would it take the prohibitian party
to secure three-fourths of the states,
not wsn this is gssss gsss oarry has ons ana eeo s
toral vote of single state in the union. All
it can do, and in fact all its leaders hope
to do in this campaign, is to take enough
votes from the republican party to cause its
defeat. This of course would enable the de-
mocracy to succeed. Would such result
benefit prohibition? Do they expect to
smite the republicans in order to make them
do more for, and embrace prohibition.
But it is claimed that this party fails to do as
much for prohibition as it should, because
it is controlled by its members, who are
anti prohibition in principle. If this is
true, then it would follow that majority of
republicans are anti prohibition in principle.
If the majority is anti-prohibition in prin-,
ciple, then in case the republican
party is DESTROYED, as is designed
would not this majority join the
democratic party rather than the prohibi-
ton Iarty? So, as it seems to me, the de-
struction of the republican party would
strengthen the democracy, and intrench it
In power for many, many, years, If not for
all time to come.
As have always said, and now assert, as
political matters now stand, the prohibi-
the cause of temperance, by supporting the
republican ticket, both state and national.
With the above views, if I can serve your
people by addressing them on the occasion
referred to, will try and arrange to do so.
Very truly yours, A. B. JETMoRE.
NOT ONE OF THEM.
The following letter from John NJ. Gallo
way, secretary of the democratic state CEN
tral committee, to Thomas Noble, the pro-
hibition republican orator, is published in
the Wichita Eagle, together with the reply
to the same, the two documents explaining
TOPEKA, August 80. 1888.
Thomas Noble, Wichita, Kansas.
/ am requested by the democratic execu-
live committee to cordially invite You to
place some part of your time, and as much
Of it as possible. at the disposal of this COM
mittee for work during the campaign on
the stump, in the months of September,
October and November.
Should you 80 decide please advise me at
your earliest convenience. le1
First. How much of your time can you
give us?
Second. In which of the months? 10
Third. If you have any preferences as to
what part Of the field you may wish to 60
into, please indicate it.
The demand for speakers is already great
though We do not formally open the cam
paign till the 4th of September, with John
Martin at Oberlin. Yours respectfully,
JOHN N. GALLOWAY, Chairman.
The Ed0lc says: The above was received
yesterday. and 1t 4 hss been answered as fol
aron aa tha defectire democratic mail aer.