The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1892-10-04
THE PROHIBITION VOTE.

The Prohl b1t1on vote promises to pc q
greater factor than ever in the coming
presidential election. A few figures
may throw light on the situation. So
far as the Vermont and Maine elections
cast any light upon this question, they
indicate that the Prohibitionists will
gain rather than lose ground next No
vember. In Vermont they cast 1850
votes for their ticket, against 1872 in
September, 1855, and in Maine 3,3s3,
against 3,l22 four years ago. This
gain, though small in each State, was
secured notwith standing the fact that
the Republicans had done nothing to
offend the Prohibitionists, while in
Maine their support of the amendment
to the constitution might have been ex-
peoted to draw some back to their old
party.
II the Prohibitionists can gain
strength under such circumstances there
is every reason to suppose that they
will increase their poll much moro
largely in States where the Republicans
used to bid for their support, but have
now turned their backs upon them.
One such State is Indiana, where in
1888 the Republican platform denounced
the saloon and favored local option legis-
1ation, whereas this year not word is
said on the subject; and another is Iowa,
where four years ago the Republicans
congratulated the people on having
secured 1.-THE best prohibitory law in
the United States" and declared that
''no backward step will be taken on this
question:" while this year they have
ignored the matter of prohibition en-
tirely, although the Democrats arc COM
mitted to repeal Of the law as soon as
they get the power.
IAe Importance Of the Prohibition
fattor Is only npn.. eciated when one re-
calls the iac'u that, although tue Demo
erats have carried New York in every
State election for the past ten years,
there has not been single year, with
the solitary exception Of 1901, when the
Democratic plurality has not been
smaller than the Prohibition vote. In
1885, for example, Hill had IL 1874 plu.
rality for Governor, and there were
3O,s67 Prohibition votes; in 1883 Hills
plurality was 1911, and there were
30,215 Prohibition votes. Nor is New
York exceptional in this respect. The
Prohibition vote in New Jersey was
6,l53 in 1884, while Cleveland's plurality
was only 4,412, and in 1888 the same
party polled 1904 votes, while Glove
lands plurality was but 7,149. So, too.
In Connecticut, the ProhibitioniRts cast
2,305 votes in 1884, while Cleveland's
plurality was only 1875, and 4,2;4 in
1888, while Cleveland's plurality was
but $50.
AS the majority of the Prohibition
vote undoubtedly comes from the Re.
publican party, it is obvious that the
Democratic successes in these threo
States have been largely due to the
existence and activity OF this party
There is every indication that the Pro-
hibitiouists will draw off more Republi-
cans this year than ever before. The
open abandonment OF even any pretenso
OF sympathy for prohibition on the
part Of the Republicans almost every
where must release from their old allie
glance many lifelong Republicans who
accepted such asu, snces az Wetc given in
Indiana four years ago. AS even then
the Prohibitionit, cast 9,S, tea in
Indiana, or within 2,3t9 of enough 10
ALLOW CIavalaul a ofural,,v -! ,,,s, H.
very strange If they 90 not increase
their total This year to more than wipo
out Harrison's small, plurality in his
own State four yeas, ago.
Committee of management Appointed.
Tho board Of directors OF the Y. Nj. G.
A. appointed q cOnmittoa Of manage