Democratic Sentinel, Volume 8, Number 10, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 4 April 1884 — Temperance in Partisan Politics. [ARTICLE]

Temperance in Partisan Politics.

Bishop Merrill, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, has au article upon the question of prohibition in tho Western Christian Advocate, which, though written particularly with respect to the condition of things in the State of Ohio, is still of much interest, and almost perfect application in this State, and in all other states. The Bishop, of course, write from the point of view of an earnest believer in and advocate of prohibition. He says : “The conviction has been clear, in my mind, that Ohio, not less than lowa, will vote for prohibition as soon os the question can be gotten before the people in a simple and direct form, free from political biases and party complications; and that conviction has not abated. There are thousands of voters in Ohio, as there are in all the States, whose solid judgments approve prohibition, and who would vote for it an its merits, if permitted to do so without disturbing their political standing, but will not go out of their party to do so, nor will they forsake the candidates nominated by their party in order to secure the success of prohibition. Their subserviency to party may not be wise, and their love for prohibition may be far weaker than it ought to be, and yet in any action, taken for the furtherance of tho cause, the attitude of this large class of voters|should be con. sidered. My belief is that with them is the balance of power and the thing to be sought after as of the first importance is such an issue as will permit every man to vote for or against prohibition without affecting his relation to his •party, to his church, or to his favorite candidates for office.” The writer oontinues: “Even a righteous cause requires wise management. Every factor in •he problem should have its placeChiswill require an unpartisan veiw >f the relation of the question of pro. dbition to the existing political parties. ”* * This issue is great enough to be eparated from all partisan movements '* * * It is plainly unwise to commit prohibition to the keeping of any party, vnd not less unwise to attempt to form > distinct party on this ground. * * There is great danger of impatience at > lelays, and too much readiness to regard postponement as defeat. Great 1 aoral achievements require time, specially when the body of the people must be brought into action. Reforms uove slowly. * * In some things delays ire dangerous and often fatal. Not so a this contest.” In the conclusion of his augument md advice to temperance men, to '*rohibitionista, the Bishop says: “Under scarcely any conceivable circumstances would I ask any political >arty to put a prohibition plank in its datform, nor would I consent to seek he Indorsement of politieal convention, .et the parties and tbeir machinery ione. This cause is infinitely above ieir range of topics and action. It beongs to the people in their highest reedom nnd ultimate sovereignty, and he appeal should be made to the eople’b representatives in the Legisatnre upon grounds broader and

•olider than any party Hands upon. In the meantime let every thing be don* that can be to sustain and improve ! the existing legislation on the subject. Experience has amply proven that •regulation dor s not pegnlaie’—yet restraining statutory laws have some value, and with a live public sunimi ut behind them, their beneficial power may be -•> increased as to prove the pi u< ricahiii and expediency of constitutional prohibition.” This language from one so high in authority and counsel as Bishop Merri 11 is in sound practical contrast with the words of those who proclaim that they prefer free whisky to any sort of regulation or restriction, and rebukes the actions of those who would put the Liquor League in control of the government by being caught in the net of a third party, spread by the agents of the league for the ensnaring of the unwise.— [lndianapolis Journal. The temperance folks came within four votes of getting a resolution through the New York Assembly to subrhit a prohibitory constitutional amendment to a popular vote. Of the 61 votes in favor oftberasoluion. all but 9 were Republicans, and the 63 negative votes were all Democratic but 17. A suggestive fact in connection with this result is that the 9 Democrats who voted for the resolution are from rural counties and all but 3of the 17 Republicans who voted against it are from cities having over 20,000 inhabitants.