Wichita eagle., 1888-08-05
FACTS FOR THIRD PARTY MEN.
An Open Letter to DR.. John A. Brooks,
Prohibition Candidate for Vice
President.

Rev. d. r. Lucas, of Des Moines.
Iowa, a prominent clergyman of the
Christian denomination and one of the
foremost temperance workers OF the
state, has addressed to Dr. John A.
Brooks the following open letter con-
corning the attitude of the third party
men in the pending campaign. Mr..
Lucas is fully warranted in speaking for
Iowa temperance men, for he has done
more to promote practical temperance
legislation than any score OF men who
are now engineering the third party
movement:
DIES MONIES, July 21.-Dr. John A
Brooks: There appears in some of your
reported speeches some things that APP
pear to me to be unfair to those prohi-
bitionists who do not look at this aues-
ton as you do. You have much to say
of ''conscienceSvotes". and "men of con-
science, and such phrases in which you
assert that the prohibitioDists who do
not ag ee with your wild goose third
party movement are not acting accord
ing TO their conscientious convictions.
<AS YOU anu L ale Ct"OI htlS III tIlc
church and acting together religiously,
1t Is query 10 me when YOU became the
keeper of the consciences of your breth-
rem. You do yourself a gross injustice
as well as others when you assume any
such position, for certainly, where there
are five prohibitionists who will not vote
your ticket to one that will, it comes
with poor grace for one to charge the
five for acting hypOcritically III their de-
clslon. Now have. as you well know.
been a prohibitionist all my life, and it
Is not saying anything in an egotlstic
sense if | say | have done as much for
the cause of prohibition as you have.
You have been in Missouri for many
years where the Democratic party has
been ID large majority, and you have
been member of that party, and what
have you done in that party or with your
third party to get prohibition? Also
luteiy nothing. Ihaye been in Iowa and
am a member of the Republican party,
and worked in that line, and with what
result? We have one of the best pro-
hibitory laws III Iowa that his
ever been made, and it is as
we'll enforced as any other law. |
have followed no igniS fatuus of third
party impractibility. You have. Now,
what is the result: Ny state is prohibi-
tory; yours is not, and yet, forsooth, be-
cause | cannot conScientiouSly follow
your method that has proved a failure,
and abandon my own that has proved a
success, amsto be accounted as lacking
in conscience. Did you ever think, my
brother, that it is possible you are mis-
taken, and that the beam might be in
thine own eye?
Again, we have $50, 900 Prohibitionists
in Iowa. OF that number 40, 900 will
vote the Republican ticket and 10000 for
your third party ticket. Allow me to
suggest that ii is possible that the l40
may be as wise and honest as the one.
1t is true one may be wiser than 40, but
it Is not very good taste nor very good
morals for the one to say that he Is the
only honest one.
And what is true OF the state OF Iowa
is true the country over. As | said be-
fore, you cannot possibly hope to poll
more than One-tifth of the actual prohi-
bitlOn vote for your ticket, and it is not
possible that the four who refuse to vote
1t may be as wise and conscientious as
the one who does? When you say they
are not, you are violating one of the car
dinal principles of the religion we both
profess ito Judge not thy brother
While | am at this matter there are a
few other things to which | wish TO call
your attention. The only states In which
prohibition is maintained today are Re-
publican states, and yet you make your
fight against the Republican party, and
your leaders say that you have no hope
of electing your ticket, but you wish to
defeat the Republican party, SO that the
prohibition party may take its place in
1892 Very well, look at the result
You break down prohibition where it is
already established, for you cOncede
that the Democratic party is opposed to
the principle. you make enemies of all
men in the Republican party by your
fight against them, and what is the re-
suit; you keep free whisky Democratic
party in power for a generation at least.
But you begin to compare yourself 10
the abolition party: but you have studied
history to little advantage if you can
see anything in that. If the abolition
party had continued on its radical ground
what would have been the result? Slav-
ery would have been national today. for
if Abraham Lincoln mad taken his stand
would have been defeated and slavery
would have been more firmly entrenched
than ever. So, the good sense of the
people said, we will prohibit slavery in
the territories where we have lurisdic-
ton and leave the matter to the states,
and on this principle they won. So, if
Mr.. Harrison had stepped on a radical
prohibition platform at Chicago he would
lof I'D nj al,
ed for generation. But as he is on the
common ground in favor of local gov
eminent on the matter by the states
while adopting the general principle of
in all ways, or rather on
ground, he will be elected
and the great temperance reform viii
move ON. Why can you not be as wise
az the old abolitionists who supported
Fremont and Lincoln on a less radical
platform than they deemed exactly right.
You may talk of conscience and all that,
but conscience without common sense
is only fanaticism in a republic like ours.
1t troubles my conscience to think that
the only obstacle in the way of ultimate
prohibition is the utter impracubility of
those who blindly put out third party
ticket to stop the progress OF events 10
that end. Besides. your party Is not
acting on highly moral plan. You
confess that the Democratic party is
opposed to prohibition, and that you
intend to oppose it after you have beaten
the Republican party. When, my good
brother, did you adopt the principle, we
viii do evil that good may como. You
will put the devil in power that you may
fight him. Verify, if that is conscience.
,hanl-f,,1 I ~ In, t.y,d