Morris tribune., 1888-03-07
CORRESPONDENCE.
EDITOR TRIBUNE:-

CORRESPONDENCE.
EDITOR TRIBUNE
When the rabid class Of Prohibi-
tionists call temperance Republicans
hypocrites, and when the mildsr kind
say to them, You are trying to serve
both God and Mammon," or in other
words, "Your politics are Influenced
by pocket-book considerations" they
not only injure their own cause and
party, but show base ingratitude to
that class from which they have
drawn nine-tenths OF their recruits In
the past. and to which they look for
nearly all their future aecessions.
But, while it is not pleasant to the
writer, who is temperance Republic
can, to see the class to which he be-
longs thus libeled by those who are OF
the same faith as regards the end In
view, yet it is not such foolish accu-
sations which elieits this letter, but 1t
is to give q few reasons for believing
that, in Minnesota at least, 1t Is not
the Prohibition, but the Republican
party that is the best medium through
which to suppress the liquor traffic.
The Prohibs say they have tried the
Republican party many times and
failed. But how have they tried?
BY going before conventions whose
delegates were not chosen to decide
such question; by submitting their
cause to legislatures, the members OF
which were not elected on such an
issue. What right have they to say
that the Republican members Of those
bodies represented the temperance
sentiment of their constituents.
The Prohibs may also say, my
poor deluded aud perhaps well-mean-
ing brother, do you not see that high
license and local option is the present
declared policy of your party?" L
reply, no. see nothing of the kind;
neither do you see it, nor can you
until It is we'll known that such a
policy has been approved 10y major
ity of the party, for it is the majority
that will ultimately settle that ques-
ton, and not the writings of a few
so-called party leaders.
The Prohibs are constantly talking
about the paramount political infiu-
ence of the whisky element. How
has that element gained its alleged
influence? Has it been by forming a
new party, by voting only for men OF
their stripe, or men OF but one idea
who could represent but one issue?
No, certainly not; but by thorough
organization and working within the
old parties. Had they organized a
new party and obstinately chung to it,
as have the Prohibitionists, their
saloons, "the school houses Of vice
and crime" which disgrace alike city
and hamlet, would now exist only in
the past.
The temperance enthusiasts, who
belong to the third party, are doing q
great and good work by creating q
public sentiment against the liquor
traffic. But in what way is their
party of any aid to such work? How
do they forward their cause by voting
only for Prohibition candidates whom
they positively know stand no earthly
chance of being elected. During their
fifteen Or twenty years of existence In
ta- Pie as political party, what
has that party achieved on which can
be based a reasonable hope Of future
success?
To suppress the liquor traffic it ID
first necessary to elect legislature
that will submit the matter to the
people. The important question then
is, how to elect such q legislature
The Prohibition party certainly can.
not do it; its ability to elect q single
member of such body Is q fair sub
ject for doubt. What excuse, then,
can it offer for continuing its exist
ence? The Democratic party cannot
do 1t, for its members are too few and
too fond of whisky. In the Republic
can party remain the large majority
of those who are opposed to the de-
grading influence Of the saloon, and
that majority, when properly organ
lied, as it ultimately will be, can
control their party and can nominate
and elect legislators who will not
have the unblushing gall and arro-
gance to vote against the known
wishes of their constituents. But to
organize that majority, we are in
much need of the temperance enthu-
siasts-the earnest workers which you
Prohibitlonists have taken from us.
You have gone where the large body
of those whose votes will finally sup
press the liquor traffic will not follow.
For nearly twenty years you have
tried your own pet theory, and have
succeeded only in dividing the tenn
perance strength. Now, the writer
would respectfully suggest: if you are
more Jealous for your cause than for
your party; if you are more in earnest
as reformers than as politicians, that
you go to the mountain that will not
come to you-that you come back to
the grand old party which has accom-
plished 80 much for humanity and for
our country. We will then have the
strength of unity, where is now the
weakness OF division.
It was not the Abolitionists, but
Republican party which abolished
negro slavery, and II 10 the evident
destiny of the same old party to effect