Democratic Sentinel, Volume 9, Number 39, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 October 1885 — Republican Cant. [ARTICLE]

Republican Cant.

Hypocrisy and cant seem to be the chief stock in trade of Republican candidates and platform-makers this year. In no State where a platform has been adopted has the party dared to make a square, manly utterance on the liquor issue, lest by so doing it might lose the vote either of the Prohibitionists or anti-Prohibitionists. Its gene al attitude is substantially that described in the lowa platform. It proclaims itself “the steady upholder of the right and duty of the State to regulate the traffic in liquor by such methods as will suppress most of its evils; but has never made the support of prohibition a test of party fealty.” In other words, it wants the support of Prohibitionists, liigh-license men, and all who believe in any method of suppressing the liquor traffic, but does not propose to commit the party to suppression in any form. This differs a little from the attitude of the party in Michigan, where it declares with emphasis for the right of the people to vote in favor of a prohibitory amendment, but holds itself absolved from any obligation to support the amendment. The object, however, is the same in both cases; and the canting hypocrisy is the same. The platforms in Massachusetts, Ohio, and New York are no better; but the most notable exhibition of cant is furnished by the Republican candidate for Governor in the latter State. He has been arraigned by the prohibitionists for his presidency in a wine-making company, and the charge seems to him serious enough to call for a defense. He makes one, therefore. And the pith of it is that he is not and has not been a wine-maker in any wicked sense, but simply as an act of friendship and pure philanthrophv. A cousin of his, who was engaged in the wicked business, died suddenly and left him to execute his will. When he came to look into the affairs of the deceased he found that the only way in which anything could be saved for the widow and children was to take the presidency of the wine company and continue the business. He did so, for four years, and then, having . wound up the estate and gotten the business into a prosperous condition, resigned. And this canting plea that he conducted, not for gain to himself but to others, a business which the Prohibitionists regard as immoral is liis only answer to their indictment. It was comparatively unimportant, perhaps, what answer to make so far as his support to the Prohibitionists is concerned, for there has been no likelihood from the first that he would receive any support from them. But knowing this he might, it would seem, have given him an honest, manly answer. The plea which he makes would have quite as much force from the standpoint of the Prohibitionists if his deceased cousin had been engaged in the lottery business, or carrying on a receivership of stolen goods. If the wine business is immoral—and he cantingly asks the Prohibitionists to believe that he so regards it, his carrying it on under the cloak of philantlirophy was still more immoral. —Detroit Free Press.