Mississippi leader. (Jackson, Miss.) 1892-1895, 1894-05-08
BROOKHAVEN, MISSISSIPPI TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1894

ever existed in this country" And
that, "This being the case, there are
thousands and tens of thousands of as
good people as ever lived who oppose
this party on principle That "they
are in favor of the suppression of the
liquor traffic; but that they regard
this us the proper work of the State,
with which the general government
should have nothing to do" You do
not say which plank or planks in the
Prohibition National platform justi-
fies your sweeping charge; but as you
were discussing exclusively the liquor
traffic question, it seems fair to con-
clude that it is the liquor traffic plank
to which allusion is made. Now,
there have been great many pOliti-
cal parties organized in this country,
and for a minister and religious news
paper editor to claim to be sufficient
ly posted in political history to say
which one of them all is most central
izing in its make up and tendency is
claiming Il good deal. But, Brother
Black, / propose to simplify this dis
cussiOn by narrowing it down to the
centralizing attitude of just two po
litical parties an the liquor question;
the one to which belong and against
which you make this sweeping charge
the Prohibition party; and the one
to which you belong-the Democratic
party.
Your party said in its Nation
al platform at Chicago, July 10, 1884,
and has twice endorsed it since, and
had it's last candidate for the presi-
dency to endorse it in his letter of
acceptance, that: 1--WE oppose sumpt-
uary laws which vex the citizen and
interfere with individual liberty"
As to what was meant by this declar-
alton of your national party, leave
to the utterances of State Democratic
platforms to determine. That of Cal
ifornia endorsed it because it says:
at protects our wine making indus
try" Connecticut, on the plea that,
"a well regulated license law will
best promote the cause of temperance
and good order" That of Illinois,
because, "Prohibition by constitution
or general law of the manufacture of
vinous, malt or spirituous liquors
would be violation of personal
rights That of Indiana, because it
''favors n reasonable increase of the
license tax for school purposes"
That of Iowa, because. "in favor of
the repeal of the present Prohibition
law" That of Kansas, because, COP
posed to the principle of Prohibition y
That of Minnesota, because, the "tra-
dition of the Democratic party is in
favor Of personal liberty That of
Il, l.,
law is the most practical and effective
temperance measure That of New
York, because, 1--WE believe that ex-
else 0iquor) revenues should be ap-
piled to lessening local burdenS.n
That of Ohio. because, "In favor of
providing in the Constitution for the
licensing of such traffic. and that
of Vermont because, 'In favor of in
creasing the revenue"
Now, Brother Black, which is the
most centralizing declaration in your
National platform in favor of the
above named aud other states legal
izing an evil that our Federal Supreme
Court declares to be the cause of three
fourths of the crime and suffering of
the country, and would have no right
| W tNlSJ NllllOuG suCll vi
Il declaration in my National platform
condemnatory of such action: and
which is most in harmony with the
Universal rulings, public declarations
and specific teachings of our church
and what our church claims to be the
teachings of Gods word on the sub
ject?
SO much for platforms. But again:
More than thirty years ago, the Ma
tional Republican party began to build
up II National liquor monopoly. 1t
invaded the States, and closed up and
thereby rendered valuelesS hundreds
of small distilleries in which citizens
of various States had invested their
money, had larger distilleries erected
to supply their places, put its own
agents in control of them, and became
Il party to, and sharer in the profits of
them. Under that system between
four and five thousand warehouses
have been erected in the various
States in which the distllers place
their liquors and receive for same
government certificates of deposit
from government clerks upon which
they ynegOtiate for money to make more
liquor for themselves and the Federal
governments and when the liquor is
sold, or at the end of three years
if not sold, the government demands
of the other partner and draws its
part of the business profits. Further
more, under this system the Federal
government sends out at its own eX-
pense an army of spies to run down
and have punished any citizen of Il
State who may dare to distil even
one drop of liquor for his own use in
competition with its partners in the
|, business. 1t also sells any man who
may apply, written privilege or in
diligence to buy and sell any of these
liquors, and restrains all others from
doing so, in any State in the Union,
whatever the laws of such State may
be on the liquor question, and, there
by weakens. rather than strengthens
the laws of the States which go to
make up the government as ii whole.
Thus, the citizen partner builds the
distillery under government plans,
builds the warehouse to put the liquor
in, and the government furnishes the
clerk to run the warehouses, and an
army of detectives to protect the bus
mess against competition, and if un
der such protection the citizen part
ner fails to sell the co-partnership
product in three years he is required
to advance the government partner