The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-07-09
The Prohibition Vote.

The great contest this year will be be-
tween the Republican and the Demo-
cratic parties. The smaller political or
CARNATIONS will probably cast fewer
votes than ever before. In view of the
free silver declaration by the Kansas
City convention, 1t is safe to say that
the majority OF the Gold Democrats
will vote for Mckinley. Some Of those
who voted for Palmer and Buckner may
again put a ticket in the field, but the
support given 1t at the polls will be
comparatively meagre. The strength OF
the Middle of the Road Populists will be
insignificant. and those who met at
Sioux Falls and style themselves Popu-
lists will support Bryan. Those who
have heretofore voted soeialistic ticket
are now divided into the Social-Demo-
cratic, Socialist-Labor ana Socialist par
ties. and the vote of each organization
will be comparatively light.
The Prohibition party Is another or
ganlzatlon the vote of which may fall
considerably below that cast in 1896.
The convention OF the party which re-
Gently nominated Woolley and Metcalf
attracted less attention than similar
gatherings have in past years. Perhaps
this was because il made declarations
upon the matter of prohibition alone.
and was not disturbed by discussions
over outside matters. such as woman
suffrage. which It has always favored.
and free silver, which divided the party
into two factions four years ago. This
year it's platform has been narrowed TO
a single principle and the vote cast by
the party will represent those who be-
lieve that prohibition is more impor-
tant than any other issue.
The Prohibitionists have now been in
the national field with presidential can
didates for thrty-eight years. They
made nominations in 1872 and 1876. and
in 1880 with Neal Dow as their stand
ard bearer polled 1896 votes. In 1884
they. nominated for president John p.
ST. John o, Kansas and polled ISL 500
votes. In 1855 the candidate was Ciin-
ton u. Fisk OF New Jersey and the vote
rose 10 .o9. SOC. In 1892 the candidate
was John Bidweu o. California and the
vote cast was so Is3, the largest in the
history Of the party Four years later
the party was torn ssnndsr BY the sill
yer question. The majority believed in
making a single issue in the campaign.
while the minority. led by er-Gov. St
John. wanted an Endorsement OF free
silver. gov eminent control OK railroads
the income tax aud other Popullstc
doctrines. The regular candidate was
Joshua Lowering OF Maryland and the
boilers put up Charles L. Bentley 81
Nebraska. Together they aoiled about
i..Ooo votes. % which Bentley received
about i4.D0o The party vote had fallen
or one-half in four years.
II Is doubtful il the vote OF the Pro-
| hihltlonlsts this year exceeds that Of
isas. rhelr doctrine srouses less Inter
est and commands hess influence than
10 once did as a matter ~ politics With
The early growth O. the Prohibition
! movement there was tendency In
many states towards legislative restric-
tlon OF the liquor traffic. Prohibition
vas talked * from the stump. and
Maine. Vermont, Kansas ani Iowa we're
| Prohibition states. South Dakota be
anne one when IL was admitted TO the
uH.oa. - iid North Dakota. But
I since then the question seems to
have been regarded with sone tn
difference. Iowa has virtually aoan-
daaea the prohibitory system. and it Is
said thst little effort Is made T. enforce
the Law .n Kansas or south Dakota. As
a sital .ssae % De- settled b. the people
AT the polls, prohibition has no present
Importance. and this year the vote
which represents that cause Will be ex-
] ,remely Insignificant
I The Montana delegates called On Mr..
II