New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-10-10
THE VERDICT or CONNECTICUT

ne uCCISlOH Vi HC l$dhu VI hJtNhuJ
itS' on the question Of Prohibition was not in
general unexpected, but was much more de
cisive than any member of either party had
anticipated. The largest majority against
Prohibition by any one predicted was about
10000. The actual majority, with few towns
to hear from, is already nearly $1,000 and
the votes appear to have been more than two
to one against Prohibition. 1t is important
to observe that neither political party is sup
posed to have used any influence for or against
the amendment Although large proportion
Of the Prohibition voters were Republicans, it
was felt that the political organization, having
been formed for distinctly limited purposes,
had no night TO antagOnize the large number Of
its supporters who preferred high license, and
as a matter of fact it has not been reported
that the Republican organization helped or OPP
posed the amendment. The Democratic Or
ganization had a definite and strong interest
in preventing the adoption of the amendment,
but could not afford unnecessarily to offend
Prohibition voters, to whom it owes all its
chances of success in recent years. and the as
surance Of defeat of Prohibition was so great
that political effort in that direction doubtless
seemed to the managers unnecessary and there
fore unwiSe.
The decision of the people in this case was
therefore based almost entirely upon their con-
yictions and wishes respecting the temperance
question, with less influence from political
considerations than in any other recent con-
test. Rightly or wrongly, the voters Of Con-
necticut oppose Prohibition and favor high
license. The course of discussion prior to the
election forcShadowcd this result, and made It
clear that very many Of the purest and best
men in the State had concluded to oppose Pro-
hibition on conscientious grounds. The dec
laIation OF the Rev. DR.. HarwoOd of New
Haven, represented the feeling Of one consd-
eroble norton Of these citizens; he held that
neither State nor town had the right to pro-
bibit the exercise Of individual discretion in a
matter not sinful in itself, and did not con-
slider the use Of stimulants in itself sinful. TO
the many who occupy this position, including
not few whose purity of motives could not
he questioned, must be added thousands who
regarded the traffic as sinful, because most
pernicious to society but who were convinced
that the most effective way to restrain it prac
ticaIly was by high license, and not by NOM
inal prohibition which could not be enforced
Roughly speaking, the voting appears to in
dic9te that more than two-thirds Of the peopIe
are in favor of restraining the liquor traffic As
great evil and not One-third in favor Of
leaving it unrestricted. But of the two thirds
a fraction less than one-third desired Probib-
ton while the majority rejected that method
and preferred license. Practical legislation
for the promotion of temperance can be at
tanned by union of those who believe in re-
striction by high license, but in no other way.
because the people decide more than two TO
enc against Prohibition. Practical legislation
| for the promotion Of temperance can be de-
| feated only by virtual union of those who
want Prohibition with those who want unre-
stricted liquor traffic. 1t rests with the advo-
Gates of Prohibition, therefore. to decide
whether the traffic shall be wholly unchecked
because more than two-thirdssof the people
refuse to check it in their way.
The lesson taught by Connecticut is the les