The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1920-01-30
DEMOCRACY

Some weeks ago our esteemed con.
temporary, the Florida Times Union,
made the following observation:
There was a time when democratic
party represented definite principles
that majority of the people of the
country endorsed"
AS we understand them, the def.
mite, fundamental principles of the
democratic party which a majority
of the people of the country endorse,
are those embraced in the declaration
of independence and the constitution
and laws of the United States.
From our point Of view the demo
cratic party still stands for those def.
mite, fundamental principles.
The T.-U, if we comprehend the
sense of its meaning, meant that the
democratic party had abandoned its
definite, time honored principles
when a democratic president signed
the prohibition amendment and let 1t
be known that he favored the woman
suffrage amendment.
The prohibition amendment was Sc
cured in a perfectly lawful and con.
stitutional manner and is certainly en-.
dorsed by a majority of the people of
the country, and woman suffrage is
proposed to be made a part of the
constitution by closely following the
method outlined in the constitution
itself.
So it does not occur to us that that
1t is an abandonment of any definite,
fundamental or vital principle of the
democratic party.
Defending the "wets," who are
making fight to abrogate the prohi.
ton amendment, the Times Union
says: Il
1.-THE Constitution itself provides
the method by which it may be chang
ed and if the men who are trying to
get something out of the constitution
by the method it provides are attack
ing the constitution certainly the men
who are trying to put something in it
by the method which it prescribes
were also attacking it. If the whiskey
men are attacking it the prohibition
lists did attack it, so what's the use
of calling names ?"-The Times Union.
There the T.-U goes on further to
say:
There never was anything more
firmely riveted than prohibition is.
1t is the law of the states and of the
nation and any official who fails to
enforce it perjures himself. He
swears to support the state constitu-
ton and the federal constitution and
prohibition is in both. The effort to
get it out of the federal constitution
is the widest sort of an undertaking.
Three-fourths of the states had to con-
sent to it before it got into the con-
stitution and now three-fourths will
have to consent to it's repeal before it
can be gotten out. Can anyone con-
ceive of such revolution in public
opinion. The whiskey men can no
more accomplish it than they can lift
up the rock of Gibraltar and throw it
into the sea. 1t is not possible except
by combination Of the whiskey men
and the extreme prohibitionists. If
the extreme prohihitionists enforce
this law as if there were no other law,
If they enforce it by spy and search
system that outrages the feelings of
the people and by taxation greater
than is needed to enforce all other
laws they may bring about this revo-
luton. 1t is inconceivable that it will
come in any other way"
All of this being true, wherein is
there any abandonment of any vital,
ornamental or definite principle for
merly represented by the democratic
party which was endorsed by ma
jority of the people of the country?
The T.-U. tells us that there was
never anything more firmly rivited
upon the country than prohibition is,
because, forsooth, it is endorsed by an
overwhelming majority of the people,
and women suffrage can only become
a part of the organic law by being
likewise endorsed by a majority of the
country.
The democratic party is now and
always has been a party submitting to
and governed by the majority.
1t stands for those principles which
a majority of the people favor.
1t is still the party of it's founders
and stands to day for those definite
principles it has always stood for.