Mississippi leader. (Jackson, Miss.) 1892-1895, 1894-04-10
ONE PHASE OF THE TEN
PERANCE QUESTION.

certain phase of the great and
many-sided temperance question.
As all the world knows, the Meth
odist Episcopal Church, South,
has put itself on record through
its General Conference as the ir-
reconcilable antagonist of the Ii
quor traffic. In its utterances on
this subject, however, the church
has not committed itself to any
particular method of warfare.
There are three methods of sup
pressing the traffic-viz: Local
option, State Prohibition, either
by statutory enactment or by
constitutional amendment, and
National Prohibition. Now, the
General Conference in its deliver
ances on the subject has not pre-
scribed any one of these methods
as the only allowable method; it
has not even expressed prefer
ence as between. them. And yet
the deliverances of the General
Conference are in certain circles
quoted as if they were authorita-
tive utterances in favor of a par
ticular method-viz: That of Ma
tional Prohibition.
This is a most manifest misrep-
resentation. We claim to have
had special facilities for ascer-
tanning the temperance sentiment
of the last two General Confer
ences-the very ones whose utter
ances we refer to; and we assert
without fear of successful contra
diction from any quarter that a
deliverancc in favor of National
Prohibition would hardly have
had handful of supporters in
either.
A man may be thoroughly
good Methodist and favor any one
of the three methods. To de-
nounce every man who does not
favor National Prohibition as un-
true to his church and in league
with the whisky force is, there
fore, gross injustice. And yet
this is what is done continual by
many of the writer's and speakers
of the National Prohibition Party.
1t is for the purpose of uttering a
vigorous protest against this meth
cd of procedure that these lines
are written.
From the days of Washington,
Jefferson and Hamilton on until
now there have been two political
parties in the United States some
times called by one name and
sometimes by another) which have
stood in diametrical opposition to
each other in regard to the pow
ers of the general government,
one favoring a strong cen
tralized government at Wash
ington, the other putting
great emphasis upon States
rights. Neither of these parties
has ever been able to claim a mo-
nopoly of talent, virtue or patri-
otism. Talent has been arrayed
against talent. Citizenship of the
loftiest type has been found in
both these parties. And what is
true of the past is true of the
present. The question of the two
relations between the general gov
eminent and the State govern
ments is one which still divides
men of all classes. No man,
therefore, has a right to discount
the intelligence, virtue or patriot
ism of another simply on account
of difference of opinion on this
question.
Now, the National Prohibition
Party goes further in the direc-
ton of Capitalization than any
other party that has ever existed
in this country. This being the
case, there are thousands and tens
of thousands of as good people as
ever lived who oppose this party
on principle. They are in favor
of the suppression of the liquor
traffic; but they regard this as the
proper work of the State, with
which the general government
should have nothing to do.
Whether such men arc right in
their view or not is question
which will not here be discussed.
The point we make is that man
has right to hold this view with
out having his intelligence, patri-
otism or integrity called in ques-
ton. The policy of denouncing
every man who refuses to unite in
a campaign for National Prohibi-
ton as traitor to the church and
to the temperance cause is not on
L