Mississippi leader. (Jackson, Miss.) 1892-1895, 1894-05-08

! IHNlldS uOiIt bIhb ~
ty party could do to helpo on the work;
and since it got control of all the de-
partmcnts of government has gone
| further by voting in the lower house
of Congress to increase ten per cent
| the governments profits on its de-
| bauched consumers, while the Senate
committee has put it at twenty per
cent, and given the protected citizen
partner eight years instead of three to
make the sales.
Now in contrast with your central
izing party. the Prohibition party de-
clares this to he all wrong, and pro-
poses when it ascends to power to
dissolve this o-partnership between
the Federal government, and the Ii
quor business, have nothing more to
do with erecting and operating distil-
leries to make liquor for beverage
purposes, recognize no longer by Con-
gressional enactment the liquor traf-
tic as interS State commerce, stop is
suing license to any one to sell liquor
either in or out of Prohibition State,
and to thus turn the whole matter
over to the control of the States.
Brother Black, which is the most
centralizing policy, that actually
adopted by your party or proposed by
mine, and which is the nearest i'll
conformity with the resolutions and
teachings of our church? But your
National party is not only i'll favor of
this centralizing policy as far as it
has gone, but it is in favor of extend
ing it so as to crush out the last YES
tige of prohibitory measures in and by
the State. The policy as adopted
made it necessary for the Federal
government to treat the liquor traffic
as part of Interstate commerce;
and as Congress alone under the Fed
eral Constitution has the right to reg
ulate that. our highest court decided
that State could not prevent the in
PRODUCTION from other States, and the
sale of liquors in original packages in
any part of its territory whatever its
laws on the subject might be, unless
Congress passed law authorizing
the States to do so. This destroyed
all State or county Prohibition. Hence
bill was introduced in Congress to
grant the States the privilege of con-
trolling the liquor traffic within their
borders, and on the 9th day of Au
gust, 1890, after all amendments
and substitutes had been disposed of,
and the abstract question of allowing
! the States to exercise such privilege
was placed on its final passage the
vote Of your party stood just for,
and 81 against it! When Oklahoma
was an Indian territory, Congress
gave it the benefit of II prohibitory
! law: but when in 1891, it was thrown
open to white settlers, and Il bill WAS
! before Congress to continue that law
until the whites could elect a legisla-
ture and say through it whether they
wished to introduce saloons, your
party voted, March 10, 1890, just I
! for, and 103 against it !,
On March 81, 1890, bill was be-
fore Congress to keep liquor out of
army supply stores, and your party
voted Just for and 92 against it
| But six of these stations were III
| States under constitutional and statu-
tory Prohibition, the validity of which
had not been recognized by both Con-
gress and the United States Supreme
| Court, and hence an amendment was
offered in favor of respecting such
! State laws. But your party voted on
! this amendment just twelve for and
seventy eight against, thus placing 1T
self squarely on record in favor OF
abolishing by Federal laws, and Fed
eral bayUnets, if need be, all State
lines or State laws when they stand
in the way of the complete domina-
ton of this hugh liquor monopoly.
For these exact votes see McPher-
sons's Hand Book of Politics for 1890,
pages 249 to 254, or Congressional
Globe. Does history show the equal
of this record of your party in Con-
gress in favor of a centralized govern
ment, and that too on measure and
in the interest of business the most
degrading, dangerous and damnable
| that ever cursed a nation or dlsgraced
u political party? Can you find any
thing that even slightly resembles an
approach to it in the National PrOhi-
bition Party Platform, or recall an
utterance that would remind you of 1T
from the most ignorant and unguard-
ed Prohibition blatherskite, who, OF
course represents a certain element in
every human organization {! What is
it, my brother, in the National PrOhibl-
ton Platform of a centralizing nature
| that YOU. and the "tenS of thousands"
to whom you refer in your sweeping
charge, cannot swallow with as good
grace as you can swallow the above
written and undeniable record of
blackest treason to States rights and
local self f-gOvernment, already made
by your own trusted party leaders in
Congress And by whom were tho
men who made that record elected,
and to whom but their constituency
are they responsible, and what rela-
ton to that black record does their
constituency occupy when they con-
tinue to endorse them as their party
leaders
A majority of those congressman
were from the States continuing the
territory covered by our own NJ. +.
Church, South, and would have been
elected if every vote cast ut theil
election had from any cause been
thrown out except the vote of oul
church Yes, they would have been
elected if every vote cast had been
thrown out EXCEPT THE PREACHERS
OF OUR CHURCH,! And, yet, there is
their centralizing record, on ques-
tion as black as perdition itself, re-
tlecting the politics of IL majority ol
our church and our clergy; and Will