Mississippi leader. (Jackson, Miss.) 1892-1895, 1893-11-28
THE PROHIBITION AND PEOPLES
PARTIES.

if the Prohibition party hadn't got
mixed up with the Peoples party and
become tail to the Third party kite"
This is what is sometimes heard from
a man who claims to be " as good q
Prohibitionist as any body" but who
last fall voted the Democratic ticket.
The man who makes such an asser-
ton as that, is either very insincere
and desires to conceal his real motives,
or he is pitifully ignorant of what he
is talking about, and this The LEADER
can demonstrate by the recital of a
few facts.
The National Prohibition party has
had an organic existence ever since it
nominated its first Presidential ticket
in 1872. It's growth has been slow, but
gradual and steady since that time. In
1892, it had a Bidwell and Cranfill cleo
toral ticket in every State in the I'm
ion except Louisiana, South Carolina
and South Dakota. With the Prohibi-
ton party, the suppression of the IL
quor traffic has been from the very
first and is still the dominant and over
shadowing issue. 1t does not ignore
or unduly minify other important gov.
ernmental questions. It's last platform
contains 10 planks besides the one on
the liquor traffic, including clear-c
declarations of its position on the cur
rency, the tariff, suffrage, gambling in
farm products, etc. But, as stated, the
foremost purpose of the party is the
destruction of the beverage liquor
traffic. THE LEADER will not stop here
to show why the suppression of the
drink traffic is, and of right ought to
be, at this time, the dominant question
in politics with every American patri-
OF; while the proof of this is abundant,
that is not the purpose of this article.
The National Peoples party was not
formally organized until July 18th, 1892,
90 years after the birth of the Prohibi-
ton party. 1t ignored the liquor ques-
ton, which Prohibitionists consider
first of all, and acquiesced. for the time
being at least, on that subject in the
license policy of the two old parties.
There was no overture for union or fu-
sion of the Prohibition party and the
Peoples party by either at the birth of
the new party, and there has been no
formal or official action looking to that
end since.
Coming now to Mississippi, we have
the only facts which give even shad-
ow of truth to the assertion we have
quoted When the Peoples party met
in State convention in Mississippi to
organize and appoint delegatesto Oma-
ha, it boldly declared its hostility to
the liquor traffic, thus placing itself in
accord with the leading object of the
National Prohibition party. Though,
as already stated, the Prohibition ques-
ton was ignored by the Omaha Con
vention, the nominees of the Peoples
party for Congress in Mississippi ac-
cepted the action of their State
Convention on the liquor ques
ton, and Mississippi Prohibition
lists could therefore consist
emily support these Congressional
nominees as representing the domi-
nant principle to which the Prohibi-
ton party is committed, and hence
nominated no separate congressional
candidates, though they continued to
support their National ticket Bidwell
and Cranfill, as Peoples party men did
their National ticket, Weaver and
Field.
If any Lam as good a-ProhibitioniSt-
as-you-are critic thinks that there was
anything wrong or inconsistent about
this, our reply is, that the man, who,
protesting to be a Prohibitionist on
principle, voted for party and candi-
dates openly pledged to whisky, was
ten fold more inconsistent. And if the
Prohibition party became tail to the
Peoples party kite in Mississippi by
that act, much more did your whisky
cratic party become "a tail to the Peo-
pies party kite in Kansas, Idaho, Ne
vada, North Dakota and Colorado,
where the Democrats tackled on to the
"Populist kite" and didn't even have a
Cleveland electoral ticket. In each of
these five States, which the Populists
carried the vote for Weaver was COM
bined Democratic and Peoples Party
vote. In Colorado, Kansas, and North
Dakota 40 votes were cast for Cleve-
land, in Idaho but two votes were cast
for him, and in Nevada but III votes
were cast for him. 1t is evident, there
fore, that every electoral vote secured
by Weaver was given to him by COM
bination of Democratic and Peoples
Party votes.
Again, if any person claiming to be
a Prohibitionist on principle could not
support a Prohibition Populist ike
RatliT or Jackson because
ne objected to something in the peo-
plo's party platform on which these
men stood, why did he not scratch"
the congressional candidate and vote
for Bidwell and Craniill, who stood
squarely on the National Prohibition
platform. the sOundeSt and cOmpleteSt