The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1892-04-06
THE FREE PARLIAMENT.


oailyy 10 ASK tnen 70 answer questions ;
but I will try to reply With such bfevity
To your question as to ''my preference
between partial restriction and absolutely
free rum" reply that neither actu-
ally nor theoretically il such an OPP
tion offered by any party. OF the Repub-
lican policy Of "a well-regulated license
Gov. Mckinley of Ohio declares it to be
"a mere delusion." and experience has
everywhere confirmed the correctness Of
The Democratic party has nowhere
stood, in fact or theory, for Free Rum"
difference between the Republican and
Democratic parties, Is the simple question
Of the price Of the licenses, not their num-
Der, nor the quantity or quality OF liquor
to be sold by such permissive license.
To your triple question about the
cheapness of whisky, its unrestricted sale
and the consequent drunkenness before
yes. But by your W declaration of the
conscience" character, instead of q legal
or political aspect Of the Washingtonian
movement, 1t Is clear that 1t neither
raised the price nor restricted the sale OF
whisky. It accomplished good chiefly for
ment figures are trustworthy, the ma
tional consumption of liquors steadily
increased in spite of and during that
movement. The traffic was not crippled,
nor indeed have the combined efforts OF
all the moral suasion movements in this
country, been able to stem the rising tide
of rum.
To your question, Should I not modify
my statement about the Increasing use of
intoxicating liquorsi" / reply that the
figures are from the government records.
II the facts and figures are modified |
Wills Will gladly sSs Hmso;Stis fy States %y statement so1spnm eus
makes the figures my statement OF them
must also stand.
To your question about the relative de-
crease In the consumption OF strong
drinks, as compared with the increase Of
light drinks. i answer no. The consump-
tion of strong drinks has not decreased
proportionately with the increase Of
flight wines and beer" Nor il the in
crease in the consumption of the flight"
drinks welcomed rs a temperance advance
by a single reputable reformer to-day.
Yes, the Republican party has passed
grohibitory laws in VERMONT, Iowa and
a or Rhode Island. Now in your mani
fest pride at the success Of the Republi-
can mo license avs in the three States
above will you kindly explain to your
readers why the Republican party refused
to render a similar service to Massachu-
seCcs, IScw haiAPsni.o, t.oofoSha, Iuicui-
gan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode
You ask, "Has the Prohibition party
done anything YETI" ! reply, it has not
yet carried an election. rs It likely tor"
PROFESSIONALLY. 1t il.
Hugh Mclaughlin never rave any check
Or contribution of and kind to the Brook.
lyn Prohibitionists. Nor indeed did
three cIergymen certify" any Evidence
that he did. There is a standing offer Of
$1,000 reward to any one who shall pro-
duceL proof of Democratic contributions
to Prohibition fluids. The NEWS should
produce the proof and secure q handsome
Free European Tour" enterprise.
You ask, do you deny the benefits of
Republican high license legislation in
Pennsylvania and nlinois?" Yes sir; most
emphatically. AS a temperance measure,
II Is provest bv experience to be of n 10
benefit, whatever. But as q bar to pro-
hibition, and a bulwark to the liquor
traffic, il Is of immense benefit wherever
tried. For proof Of it's failure as a tenn
perance measure, / refer you to the police
and court records in high license states.
For proof of its benefits to the liquor
traffic, l refer you to the unsolicited writ
f S,aw ses.i and Seo oI the ;n b bssGin Iicsn aiss stasss
DOL enjoy the Democratic success in
New York." you ask. No sir; not more
than 1 enjoy the Republican success in
Yet, Democratic success In
New York has not affected the liquor
traffic. Nor il the ''allnight and Sunday
New York, than Republican Cincinnati.
While the proposition to license prosti-
tuition in New York city may have been
suggested by b actual practice of that
policy in Republican Omaha.
did you not help to down Warner
Miller in 1882" We did run a straight
ain and Warner Miller the year t6at MIR.
according to his wi declaration
the New York:Trtbunc, made q dis |
tinctively temperance campaign" for the
sole purpose OF keeping down the Pro
vote sufficiently. to ensure the
Of Mr.. Harrison" And Messrs.
rum vote, while Mr.. Miller and the Pro-
arc still outside the breast
"Why" did we run our ticket that Year,
Because we are a f~ull-fledged political
party, with q distinct political policy rep
resented by no other party or candidates;
s Moreover owe ai IN issssf B ~ sHs under neds 20 q T Re.
city government, had one licensed
lat $685. to every eighty people;
while New York, under q Democratic city
government, had one licensed saloon lat
TO every 100 people. Now, according
% your own theory, the RESTRICTED sys- |
EN- of Democratic New York was prefer
lble to the freer rum system of Republi-
AN Buffalo.
s'Do you prefer no bread to half a loaf ~
When we ask for the bread Of temperance
We will not be content with the stone Of
and unrestricted drunken
less. Never.
In reply to your unique but unrelated
do you understand the paral-
Of forces =" permit me to ask,
lear sirs, IL you understand the hydro
tatic paradox.
No reform movement has ever yet at
aimed success in this country by the
,alance-of-powsr method. Great parties
ire never reformed they may be recon-
But death always precedes res
Since temperance men are
In all the parties, we are trying to
them ito pull together" in one party
md march to the certain success which
waits united efforts. We receive no
avors from Republican license laws, nor
10 we fear Democratic liquor legislation.
No, sir, l cannot give "the names Of
nv one hundred liquor dealers In New
York city. But in 1883, nine Harrison
md Morton clubs in that city were named
'fter popular saloons, while h New
York 15bun declared that n large mn m /