Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1906-11-20
PROHIBITION
Is a Moral Not a Political Ques-
tion.

me tltcllON OF uclcgales to lne
constitutional convention makes
mmlstakably plain the fact that not
only is public sentiment in the new
state opposed to prohibition, but that
any political party that allows itself
TO eb entangled in the meshes of
prohibition, radicalism and prejudice
will become powerless to protect it.
self and fall an easy victim to its
adyersaries.
Prohibition is a moral, not a polit-
ical question, fact not always recog-
uiaed by political managers, Each
citizen reserves to himself the right
to do as he thinks best in the use of
beverages, etc, and feels that as long
as he obeys the laws Of his country
hi, private affairs should be outside
the interference and jurisdiction of
his nelgHbor As religion, like poll
ties, is a moral question, any attempt
of one man or organization TO compel
another to accept a certain dogma
on creed, is always productive Of
strife In earlier ages it provoked
the bloodiesr wars known in history
The further civilization advanced and
the more enlightened it became, the
stronger has been the effort to di-
vorce church and state, Religion and
politics will not mix, nor will prohi-
bilon and politics,
1t has been demonstrated beyond
a doubt that though some democrats
and some republicans in the new state
are for prohibition, and for prohibi-
tion in politics, there is a balance
of power, coming possibly from both
parties, opposed to prohibition and to
prohibition in politics, that will de-
feat any party that declares for pro-
hibition. A moral question can never
be fairly decided by political meth
ods. 1t endangers the solution Of
problems, upon the equitable solution
Of which the people depend for good
laws for their STATE, If the right or
wrong of a moral question is to be
determined by people, they demand
that it shall be submitted to them
in a manner that will give them the
utmost freedom Of voice, and not
compel them, for instance to swal
low prohibition or in rejecting it,
vote against statehood. For this reat
son the people in the last election re.
belled against the pledging Of candi.
dates TO integral prohibition by rad.
ical organization that, disregarding
the welfare of all political parties
sought to gain only its own ends and
a victory for its own peculiar opin
ion.
The warning in the results is tc
the political parties, not to anti sub
mission prohbilonists. The latter
| will try to do the same thing in Other
elections if opportunity is given, anG
with absolute Indifference as to which
political party goes down in defeat
The people of the new state have
shown that they will not tolerate tao
ties that endanger the stability of
the political parties, upon whose per-
mauency rests good and successful
government. The same balance Of
voting power that routed the prohi
bitionists in the last campaign will
administer similar rebuke in any
future campaign,
If the anti-submsson prohibitions
lists are permitted to pursue their pol
icy OF rule or ruin, mixing moral ques
tom, with political affairs, the polit'
ical party blind enough to cooperate
with such autocatic radicaiSm will
,ufrr losses that no an ~.
| du,trous campaigningN ,ercomc
The balance of voting power in the
new state, opposed to prohibition is
STD much stronger than the number OF
prohibition zcaIots that the latter
cam hope TO bring only disaster to the
n.lL-nnl nnrLN lnnLsh enongn q