New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-09-06
THE DEMOCRACY AND THE PROHIBITION
AHENDMENT.

~
Democratic newspapers evidently begin 10
wish that they had not called attention TO the
attitude which their party, through It's repre-
sentatives in the Legislature, has taken on the
question of submitting Prohibition to popular
vote. THE TRIBUNE has reminded these DEM
ocratic journals that Democratic Senators ana
AsSemblymen are on record as favonng the
submission of prison labor free canals ana
other important subjects to popular vote; ana
we have insisted that the reason why they WISE
to prevent the voters having their say on ffo-
bibition is simply because they have more re-
gard for the rum power than for popular nghtS'
When it comes to Prohibition the rum power
calls for the enforcement of the gag law; IL
demands that the people shall not be allowed
TO express themselves pro or con and the DEM
ocratic party is weak and debaSed enough =
do precisely what rum tells it to do
The position which the Democratic party
has thus taken is to the last degree un-AllleIi-
can. since it is in effect an effort to muzzle the
masses. Consequently 1.-The Albany Argus
makes desperate effort to vindicate the Dem
ocratic legislators who have voted to deprN
the people of the right of expressing them
| selves at the ballot-boX on Prohibition. Inc
reason" remarks "The Argus" why Demo
| cratic members have been against SUBMITTING
! Prohibition is because the Democratic paAy is
opposed TO Prohibition" A brilliant excuse
! tulyl The people are to be sacrificed on the
| altar of partisanShip. The right of all the
voters, whatever their political antecedents, to
expIess themselves on issues which affect them
all directly or indirectly is to be denied at the
| rar,ti1 Il
York Democratic State Convention consists o.
only 38l members in fact, it is a pretty cIo-'
| corporation and it is always run by the bosses.
And because such u gathering has pronounced
| against Prohibition "The Argus" argues that
| il is right for Democratic lawmakers TO en-
deavor to paddock the lips of the electors 50
that they shall have no opportunity OF record
| ing themselves on Prohibition. Such con-
| tention would be well enough if ours did not
| happen to be a government OF the people
As it is it is preposterouS. Still 1T serves one
good purpose. 1t proves that the Democrats
in this matter have pursued course that is
indefensible. They have done their best to
come between the voters and the ballOt-boX, to
the end that there should be no expression OF
the prevailing judgment upon the issue in ques-
endeavOr to excuse themselves with plea
which is 50 weak as to look very like con-
feSsion. In the last analysis it is the droll
assumption that the tail ought to be allowed
to wag the dog.
Very different is the position Of the Repub-
ican party on Prohibition. Because it be-
eves in free speech and fair play all around it
is in favor of allowing vote to be taken on
this question, as on all others in which there
is widespread interest. 1t holds that eyeV
citizen who is for Prohibition is entitled to the
hearing which the ballot-boX grants, and that
every citizen who is against Prohibition is
equally entitled to exercise the same right.
How the majority is going to vote on Pro
hibition has nothing whatever to do with the
principle at stake. Have or have not the peo-
pie right to pass upon public questions as they
come to the front? The Republican party
claims that they have such right, and it has
done It's best to enforce it. The Democracy, on
the other hand, holds that the people have nc
such right, and it'has done its best to deprive
| II