Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1888-04-20

| OllCS ny luil CtuNGuNlOu. we EStueE OS-
lieve thst the real object is to pat the ban
Of the DemucIstlc party upon every man
who voted for prohibition
1t Is believed thai q majority Ci the
| Democrats in 6 msipri'v Of the Demo-
cratic counties in Texas voted for prohi-
bitiou in 1887, and in view OF the com
mauds which hsve been issued to the
Ants through these several letter writer's
to "seek representation in the stste con-
ventions," there is no course left the
pr hibltion Democrats but to II eet the
issue, snd also to seek representa-
ton in all the conventions.
Let US not wait for the Tirepuler5 to
make out slated tickets 1T the primaries
and cast their votes solidly, while ours
are cast without concert of seton. Do
not let designing politicians control the
county conventions and name committees
to retire and select delegates to the stste
snd congressional conventions, but let u
demand our rights openly and publicly
snd show to these extremists that We sre
treemen, not slaves.
We have never demanded of the Demo-
cratic conventions an endorsement OF
prohibition, but we do demand that IL
shall not endorse the liquor trStiic. Pro-
hibitionists, as SUCH, have not intended TO
make g concerted effort 10 control The
conventions Of this state, but being fore
warned by these letter writer, self
preservation demsnds thst they shall not
! sit idly by, while the -prohibitioDists
! in the party assume the Teins Of the party
government.
There are more than 600 G00) one hun
dred thousand Democrats in Texas who
0te dior prohibition in 1887, snd they msy
will Challenge COmpari. on With shy
number Of the opposition for 3 uniform
| devotion to the principles of the Dem6-
tcratic party. We are proud OF the great
| Democratic party, great in numbers,
great in the victories it has achieved,
more numerous by far than iis defeats,
crest in the fact that its mos trusted
leaders have ever opposed the proscrip
tue policy which these letter writer's
propose by "seeking representation in
the state conventions" great il that It
survived tn2 OstrECisn, prOscri ton and
d ESTABLISHMENT which the L publican
party sought to enforce during the days
of Republican supremacy, hut we hSva yet
to slearn i;0 greatness is attributable
to the liquor trsffic, and we are unwillzi
ing to see It's greatness diminished or iss
glory dimmed By IN attempt to upl9id
that traffic in Texas %SI
| We care not what men may say OF DeEa-
Ccsatic platforms in Kansas, Iowa Or
M.ine. In these states the Demoerstlel
party Is hopelessly in the minority, and
for this reason it may psdtsr TO th@l
whisky element for votes. But when Wei
meet in Texas to lay down our ~; tcles Of
faith, we represent 8 state whtss Demo
cratic msiOTity exceeds thsg of ell the
northern aud more than half the southern
states com 5ineG, ard it is not the part OF
wisdom or fraternity to ruthles5ly disre-
gard the expressed will of that large body
who supported prohibition, even il such
power should rest with the convention.
We are not third party men, snd we ask 10
fsvors as Prohiolti0nists, per sc, out We do
ask that our veiTs end feelings touching
matter Of purely police regulstions be re-
spected by our poli!icsl brethren.
| Let:us suppose that & minority Of the
members Of the nominating safe con-
vention be prohibitionists, (And II is b7
should by sheer force declare tnst profi
bltion is one Of the cardlnal principles Of
the Democratic party in TeXss. WCuld
these letter writer's and their cosdiutJrs
accept it as good Democratic doctrine?
plank in the plsiflrm Of 1856 Is suth
cient answer. Neither can they expec.lo
find our conscience or silence cur c0nvic
ton by s contrary declaration. We have
been Democrats, we are now Democrats
and We propose to remain Democrats,
but we do not propose 10 ssc
rifce our convictions on this sub
lect at the will snd pleasure Of any mSn
or set Of men. Tens OF thousands Of Us
inherited our Democracy, an We are de-
termip ed to maintain that inheritance IL
the forum Of our own psrty.
We were defeated on this question last
year, not BY Democrats alone, out by the
aid of = political enemy against whom We
have conrended for many years. VALE
we accept the Arbitrament IS determined
at the ballot-oCx, we ssy That Il IS ya.a
| glorious and unnecessary boast for msp
| to naunt In our faces the declaration ma
they propose 10 "petrity the result 60
last August"by Inserting a"hears,2 esk'ttl
plank in the next platform. lssresd 60
| petrifylngn 1t will purify and osecme Al
stencil in the noslrils Of the oVnserSAtiys7
| Democracy OF Texas. Ia n
Itmignt Do well for these letter writer's
to read Ag4in the lssg letter Of SsnStor
TO extreme measures. He, TOO, IS letter
writer OF no mean Distinction whose
couasels may well be needed ia this in-
stance. Indications are that political IS
piraOts Will dad plenty Of game sm5Ig
| the Republicans upon which 10 eXJ5Ut
| their surplus ammunition, 1tlhOus as.t
| 1t upon men within cur eva party lass
Ia the late prohibition Campaign Ihese
letter writers stood shoulder 10 shoulder
with DR.. Cochran, Melvin Wade, and
most of other Republicans who led the
colOred troops TO victory. TIE activity
now shown IN the Republican ranks in
Texas is evidence thai these Republican
allies will not be present 10 give them aid
aud comfort ia the Democratic stale CON
yentions. The prohibition Democrats
should see to it that the late Republican
allies OF shs ants do not participate Ia
the primaries.
Neutrality on this question VAS en-
grated in the platform OF 1856. The
authority OF the convention (aeEesoto1e
regarded as the fountain OF political
usteTanee) has been denied aud disre-
gArded BY these lzt.er writer's. They
refused to abide the solemn action OF
stata eonysntioa. Neither can they
bad " BY 4 solemn declaration against