Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-09-19
THE PROHIBITION PARTY.
The Recount of the Prohibition Votes
and of the Third Party.

The Recount of the Prohibition Votes,
and of the Third Party.
Whatever standing the self-styled Pro-
hibition party has in the confidence of the
people of this country rests solely on the
fact that few noble men, for reasons sat-
isfactory to themselves, have given it the
alliance of their names and influence.
Such men as General Neal Dow, James
Black, George w. Balm, the Rev. Dr.
Miner and perhaps a score of others Of
similar lifelong record in works of re-
form and philanthropy, can indulge in oc-
| casional eccentricity Of political method
without forfeiture of their claim to
the love and respect of all true
men and women. But in no
sense do these veterans represent the "Pro-
hibition party" nor are they represented
by it. 1t is an entirely different class of
men that make the party states, pull the
party wires and bag the party game,
| although the tolerance of the few true re-
formers make it possible for the much
| cheaper men to debase the partys stand
ard and "look out for the main chance
The party in question, as an organization,
has no record of creditable performance,
| but only of abounding pretensions and
professions; none of bravery, but plenty of
brayado; none of true independence but
plenty of impudence. 1t claims the credit
| of the work that others have wrought, and
tries to impose upon others the response
bility of the disasters to the cause it pre-
tends to serve consequent upon its own
! foolish, if not wicked, tactics. 1t habitu-
ally earns and receives the plaudits of its
| nominal enemies, and appears to find
plea: ure therein. Up to the present mo-
ment it has no visible power or influence
as an organization, except as promoting
the domination of the whisky ring and
the liquor saloon party.
These are plain words, but they are
based upon actual records, whose signif-
cance cannot be mistaken by those who
will take the trouble to examine them.
Prohibition, in behalf of whose estab-
lishment the Prohibition party" claims
to exist, has, as a principle of policy, made
mighty strides during the last ten years,
and it is both wise aud Just to compare
the actual strength of that principle or
policy with that of the party that claims
to be its sole representative. We appeal
to the facts, as officially recorded.
In 1880, Kansas gave 92,302 votes for
prohibition, but had no "prohibitory
party"
In 1882, Iowa gave 155, ,436 votes for
prohibition, but, like Kansas, at that
time was not blessed with "prohibitory
party"
In 1888 Ohio gave 3,129 votes for
prohibition, of which 1892 came from a
g prohibitory party"
In 1884 Maine gave 70,7S3 votes for
prohibition, of which l ,15l came from the
"party"
In 1886 Massachusetts, gave for prohi-
bition (nominally anti-license) 109,782
votes, with the party casting 8,251 votes
In 1886 Rhode Island gave Is, 100 votes
for prohibition and 1855 for party"
The six States above named gave each a
majority for prohibition, the aggregate
majority being 1S8604. Their total ag-
gregate vote in favor of prohibition was
766,593 and their aggregate party " vote,
at the same time, was 20,349, or, in other
words, the vote for prohibition was nearly
forty times as large as that for the party"
OF large pretensions.
We come next to Michigan, where, in
1887, 17S, $50 votes were given in favor of
prohibition and 1865 for the party"
Michigan gave q larger proportion of
party" votes than either of the States we
have named, but it was the first Republi-
can State voting upon prohibition that
failed to give majority in its support.
| Competent authority declares that the
failure to enact prohibition in Michigan is
directly chargeable to the partisan Prohi-
hif b,,t br I,,4 Al
| record is as above stated.
In the same year (1SS7), there came
next, Oregon, with 1878 votes for prohi-
bibition and 2,775 for party" Tennessee
with 117,504 votes for prohibition and
none for party" and Texas, with 129,-
273 for prohibition and 19, 1S6 for party
And so we find, in these ten States, 1,211,-
99S actual votes cast for absolute "prohi-
| tion," more than nineteen-twentieths of
| which were outside of the party of large
pretensions and small performance.
Has not the bombastic humbug been
tolerated about long enough? Has it or
ganically done anything except support a
few adyenturers for revenue only, and
soothe the anguish of few disgruntled
politicians?
If SO, what?
Instead of being a pioneer or leader in
the great reform whose name it has
usurped, instead Of helping to bear the
burdens Of that reform it loads itself upon
the reforms shoulders and demands to be
carried by it, and claims an assignment OF
the seats Of honor and advantage that be-
long Of right to the working party whose
members it treats with contemplated
York Nal and Express.