The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1891-03-19
HAS STRUCK HIS SECOND CHILD
HOOD

L
The EAGLE is evidently very much afraid
| TO trust its cause to square vote of the
people. 1t wants combine and skuldug-
gerry, and political trickery of all kinds,
and the constitutional convention, for
which all parties voted, does not afford an
opportunity for this kind of thing.-Leav-
enworth Times.
The above is the ending paragraph to
an editorial of gall and glamour in which
theimpression is sought to be made that
the EAGLE favors questionable methods
! by the Resubmisslonists. The sudden
and radical conversion Of the Times to
such lofty platform of principles is as
surprising as it is encouraging.
The EAGLE has no cause. 1t has SIM
| ply for two years been demanding, in
| the name of a respectable minority, an
other vote on the prohibition question,
| never once saying whether, in such an
event, it would be for, or against, prohi-
bItlon. This opportunity, for another
vote, has been denied by the Republican
party, only at the dictation of
its cowardly bosses, who are
upon the other hand the Alliance house
denied it through the influence of the if
teen political preachers and thirteen po-
liticai demagogues who had successfully
played themselves off on the Alliance as
representative opponents of the practical
farmer.
The Times readers may be fools, but
those of the EAGLE are not. 1t has be-
come disreputable for political elements
10 combine for success since when?
Haven't the Pronibitionists and Repub-
llcans of Kansas combined for years for
the loaves and fishes, to say nothing of
supposed principles involved? Didn't
such forced combination make ST.
John governor in the first place? In
short, did there ever exist a political
party that was not made up of combines?
The Times goes on to say:
If a majority of the people want the
prohibitory law repealed they ought to
have it So"
Which is as true theoretically as it is
all bosh practically. Did not major
ity OF the people vote against the present
administration of Kansas? Did ma jority
of the people of Kansas elect that ALI
ance house? Didn't the resubmission pc
titions bear the names of more voters
than were received by either of the
candidates for governor last fall: Had
the number of petitioners been doubled
would they have received a hearing from
that Republican senate? Haven't you
learned, my dear Colonel Dan, that the
Car is majority of all the Russias, and
that single veto vote equals all the two
thirds of two houses? Don't you know
that one-half of the Republican bosses
OF Kansas lay awake three nights out of |
the week in their distress over the |
amount of liquor consumed in Kansas, |
and that the other half lay awake for a
chance to drink and to devise ways to
raise revenue from Sons of Temper
ance lodges known as joints? Knowing
these things, why do you try to make
people believe that the Times office is an
insane asylum by getting off such rot as
you did in that editorial?
The people of Kansas do not want a
convention. Certainly the
have not asked for it,
The Prohibitionists are afraid of it. The
have nothing to gain by it.
The Alliance see in it a chance for
woman suffrage upon the one hand but
a risk of the $500 exemption clause upon
the other. The corporations of the state
are against it. The submission of the
therefore, upon the whole,
was but political slop, which smells
md looks all right but is of SO many dis
agreeable Ingredients that few will dare
oartake.