Year: 1867




intemperance, which pleased us so well
that we could not refrain from expressing
our qualification, and complimenting the
editors upon the noble stand they had taken
on that question, but in a week or two af-
ter we were panied to discover in some re-
marks on the subject, disposition to back
down from their noble position. Suppo-
sing their party friends had been threaten
ing or eXpostulating with them for what
they had said, we refrained from noticing
their backward movement, in hopes, il
left TO their own reflections, their man
hood would assert itself; but it seems from
the following. which we copy from that
sheet of the l4th inst, that we were sadly
mistaken:


The temperance men Of this place, or
rather the prOhibtioniStS. are very wrothy
al the conduct of the Republican members
of the Legislature for the manner in which
they backed down from their position on
the question of prohibitory law We dar-
ed the Republicans to pass such law; but
they thought il was not vet time to take the
advanced stepin thai direction. While they
are in principle. in favor OF Il stringent pro-
hibiIOry law, they lack the courage 10 pass
il through. Had they any assurance OF po-
litical success they would not be slow TO
pass the most stringent prohibiiOry law. We
are in favor OF our present license law In
preference to all p-ohibitory laws. and
think il better slbservcs the interests of all
claSSeS. Ii Yields 4 revenue to the school
fund. and the amount of liquor drank un-
der its provisions. is no greater than the
amount consumed at the time the Maine
law was in force


There is no miStaking the meaning and
spirit of the above. Ii is complete and
unconditional surrender of the principles
avOwed by that sheet few months since
at the behest of liquor dealers, one of
whom actually lid stop his paper and
Withdraw his advertising patronage from
That sheet. on account of the article refer
red to. Ii does not become men thus ca
silly inundated 70 talk about the cowar-
dice OF others. Ii may be few Rcpubli-
cans in the Legislature lacked the courage
to vote for more stringent liquor law, but
the m lss of them did not The bill which
passed the Senate toward the close of the
session. and which received Il votes in
The House, all Republicans, was a great
Improvement upon the present law, and.
although not prohibiory, would have been
satisfactory TO a vast majority of temper
ance men. Not single Democrat in the
House voted for the bill. and we announce
, the fact in order that the party may have
all the credit and glory resulting from the
course of its representatives on this sub
ject.


Ii is well known that we did not advo-
cate proiibitory law. although we signed
a petition 10 the legislature for the enact
ment of such a measure. because we be
lieved unless tie people asked for more
than they wanted that they would not get
what they did want We should have vo-
ted, had we been member of the Legis-
lature, for measure something like the
Shuey bill in preference to a prohibitory
law. because we think public sentiment
would not sustain a prohibitory law; but
the Shuey bill would soon educate the
people up To- that standard. We once had
a law in this State, previous To the prohib-
itory law, giving the people at the spring
elections the power to decide by vote
whether they would have any liquor shops
in their respective townships, and the re
suit after the first year, so far as our Oh
servation and information extended, was
most satisfactory TO temperance men. We
believe the people would now. if the qucs-
iion were left to them to decide, uncon-
nectcd with party issues. soon close every
/ licensed liquor house in the State. The
statement of the Democrat in the above ex-
tract, that the amount OF liquor drank now
is no greater than when the prohibitory
/ law was in force, is incorrect, at least so
/ far as our observation extended. That
law, to our certain knowledge, was pro-
ductive of vast amount of good, not on
ly in promoting public order and good
fellowship in every neighborhood, but in
reforming many who had beggared them
selves by the use of strong drink. The
good effects of the law were just beginning
to be seen and acknowledged by many
who were bitterly opposed TO it at first


when set of Democratic Supreme Court
Judges, at the behest of distillers and liquor
dealers, backed it is believed by bags o.
gold, declared il unconstitutional, thus
again opening the floodgates of intemper
ance, which has since destroyed moro
lives than fell on the battle field during


the rebellion belonging to Indiana regi


ments- Let Democracy also have the hon


or and glory of this decision.