The public weal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1906-1908, 1907-08-01

greater legislative campaign the ques-
ton has been put to us in various
fOrms-"COuld not the Anti-SalOOn
League be induced to cooperate with
us in this great enterprise?"
In most cases this question arises
from a misapprehension Of the plans
of the League (althOugh in one in
stance very active member of the
League proposed organic union be-
tween the two organizations.) The
business of the League, so far as legis-
lative elections are concerned, is, as
set forth by it's officers, the election
of those candidates who are for tenn
perance legislation. The League
makes no choice between temperance
candidates of opposing parties who are
satisfactory to it. Should they choose
between such they would violate the
principle of omnipartisanship, which
is fundamental to both their plan of
operation and their theory of politics.
And herein lies the answer to our
friend of the League, and to our other
friends who seem to think it would
be reasonable to ask the League to
unite with us to choose Prohibition
lists as legislators, in discrimination
from candidates of the old parties,
which candidates personally are good
men" and "safe" as to their vote on
the temperance legislation. Such ac-
tion would commit them to the Pro-
tibition party theory, viz, that of two
men, equal in every other particular,
that man is the more effective who is
at union with, instead of in opposi-
tion to, the policy of his party.
Hence, while we may not expect
that the Anti-Saloon League will sup
port our men in preference to tenn
perance candidates of the old parties,
vet we may rest assured that where
the old party men meet the approval
Of the League our candidates will re-
ceive like approval and, therefore, no
conflict can arise. AS between the
parties it will take no sides. And in
those districts where we present the
only men satisfactory to the League,
our candidate will receive the same
recognition as would a license party
candidate under like circumstances.
And while discussing the question
it might be well to point out the
fundamental differences between the
Party and the League-and this will
be done briefly. And while we might
properly discuss the merits of the two
plans and emphasize those points of
superiority which we believe the party
method possesses, we shall refrain.
CD The Prohibition party de-
mands the immediate and total de-
struction of the rebellious traffic,
which is admittedly prolific of evil,
evil only, and that continually. It's
purpose is to elect legislators in 1908
committed to that policy. 1t main
tains that the majority of the voters
of Minnesota are now opposed to the
saloon anywhere, at any time and
under any guise, and that, therefore,
it is henceforth neither wise nor eX-
pedient to divert much time or ef-
fort to securing less effective meas
ures.
(2) The Prohibition party main
tains that the issue is of sufficient
importance to form the main basis of
party alignment and that, therefore,
(as Lincoln put it, touching the
slavery question: lit can be entrusted
only to men who do care" And
further, that at the present time, as
touching state politics, the old parties
present no basis of division. This
means that men who do care" Gin
the absence of issues in the old par.
ties) will naturally gravitate toward
the political organization that repre-
sents their principles on the only
state issue before the people. The
League maintains this theory to be
unsound.
(3) The Prohibition party holds
As We on to D[eSS We haY|