Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1892-05-13
A WORD 70 PKOHIBIT1oN1srs.

Under the nom'de plume of "Unis," a
contributor to the Fargo Forum has
been giving some very plain, sensible
talk to republicans; or rather som
pointed and logical reasoning for pro-
hibitionists totponder over. The James,
town Capital has been copying these
articles and approving of them. The
Benson County News takes exception
and criticlses.
Colonel Warnock in reply says:
The principal fault laid at the door of the
Capital by the News is that we agree with
"Unis" that there is no occasion for allud-
ing to the prohibition subject in the state
republican platform. Whether or not this
is a fault on our par is a matter OF Opin-
ion in which we cannot agree with the
News. Prohibition was incorporated in
the state constitution by direct vote OF the
party organization. There was no pro-
hibition party in this state or this part
of the territory when that question was
an issue, and if it had failed to carry it
S not likely there would be such a party
IN the state now. The prohibition party
merely stepped in and commenced house
keeping in a domicile erected by the peo-
PIC " OH pOliLISoA PnlUlCo duu OpllllOuSs
The republican party having control OF
the legislative and executive departments
of the state carried out the expressed will
OF the people by the enactment of a string
ent prohibition law, and in doing so
%alienated many of its former adherents
who held the party. responsible for the
people voting prohibition into the constitu-
ton. Following this absurd DETECTION of
the radical liquor advocates from the re-
publican party on account Of prohibition,
the radical prOhibitiOnists did a no less
absurd thing by withdrawing and still
further weakening the republican party
by setting up a party organization OF their
CT mp use the prohibition third party for.
mtrly voted with the republicans. In this
though going in dramatically opposite d.
rectiOns. the liquor advocates andthird party
| prohibitionists both worked %inopposition to
the republican party which had given the
state a prohibition law in accordance with
the constitutional provision. The two
extremes, radicali liquor advocates and
radical prohibitionists, met on the COM
mon ground of giving aid and comfort to
the democratic party which, as a party,
was and is the open ana avowed
antagonist of prohibition, the constitu-
ton to the CONTRARY Notwithstanding
bilt. If this course be pursued by the
prOhibitiOnists in the coming campaign
it will be to the advantage Of the demo-
cratic party, and the success of the demo-
cratic party means the repeal of the pro-
hibition law-the third party .prohibi-
tionists will simply have torn down their
house over their own heads. They are
themselves re-opening a settled question,
and they cannot escape responsibility for
disaster to the prohibition law, if disaster
comes. IT we desired to aid in the down
fall Of the prohibition law we would aid
the prohibition third party, movement as
the most effective means of accomplishing
it. AS we have asserted in these
columns before we repeat now, that it is
the duty of any party that may be in
power to maintain the prohibition law as
long as the prohibition clause remains in
the state constitution. The republican
party has kept faith with the people in
this matter and we believe will continue
to do so, because the people have said in
their constitution that they want it. The
election this fall will place the state in
control Of either the republican or demo-
cratic party. and the latter party will re-.
peal the prohibition law the first oppor-
tunity of power given it. Separate party
action on the part of the prohlbitionists
will be to the advantage of the democratic
party.