Jasper County Democrat, Volume 13, Number 40, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 August 1910 — THE EMBARRASSING LIOUOR QUESTION. [ARTICLE]

THE EMBARRASSING LIOUOR QUESTION.

The Washington Star seems to be a good deal concerned as to the Bryan speeches in Indiana. The gist of its argument is found in these words: If Mr. Bryan decides to say nothing about the temperance question he will lay himself open to criticism for cat foot ednesg. Does he not know that the temperance question is very much alive in Indiana? Does he not know that the saloons and brewers and distillers are the friends and supporters of his friend. Mr. Kern? Mr. Kern's hope k- truly in them. Not all of Mr. Bryan’s eloquence would avail if the men who,, eighteen months ago. sent Mr. Shively to the senate, were now to oppose, or even become indifferent to Mr. Kern. The situation bristles with embarrassments. If Mr. Bryan, keeps mum on temperance he will be accused not only of cowardice, but of accepting in Indiana the company he declines and scorns at home. Why should the brewers and distillers’ and their retail agents be driven out of politics in Nebraska, and in Indiana receive Mr. Bryan’s* countenance and co-operation? If ne speaks out, man and Bryan fashion, on this subject sp near his heart, how will Mr. Kern and other Democratic candidates be helped? This is all very sac} —and yet there does seem to be a ray of light penetrating the gloom. Our contemporary says that Mr. Bryan can not be silent on the temperance question without laying “himself open to criticism for catfootedness/' without being accused of “cowardice.” And yet last April the Republicah state convention adopted a platform in which nothing whatever was said Of the temperance question. The convention rehearsed the party’s legislative record in great detail, specifying the various wise laws enacted, but it said pot one word in regard to the county option

law passed by a Republican legislature on the demand of a Republican Governor. and signed bv that Governor. Is there no “embarrassment. " no “catfoodedness." no "cowardice" here-? If it is cowardly for one man to main tain silence on a given subject what shall be said of the silence of a great party, a silence which leads to a practical repudiation of its own legislation on that ‘subject?

The Democrats at least have a well defined plan for solving the liquor problem, that is city and township option. This is not, to be sure, the Bryan plan, for Mr. Byran favors cotinty option, which the state now has. But that is not the point. The Democrats have a plan, the Republicans seem to have none which their state convention was willing to indorse. Who was it that was pleased by this very marked and strange silence—the tempefanefe people, or the brewers, distillers and saloon keepers? We no motives, but we do insist that the temperance men did not ask that the county option law be ignored if not repudiated. We quite agree with the Washington Star that “the situation bristles with embarras.--ments.” but they are not all on one side. Mr. Bryan will not be the only speaker in the approaching campaign to meet with them. If the Star will make but the briefest study of the Indiana Republican platform it will find that a whole convention, representing the Republican party of this state.' managed to “keep mum on temperance.” We can think of no better temperance text for Mr. Bryan than the editorial of the Washington Star in connection with the official declaration of the Republican partv. Doubtless he will make the most of it. It is well to be fair in such matters as this. " Silence i< not cowardice when maintained by one side and courage when maintained by the other. We are not in Mr. Bryan’s confidence. and of course, do not know what sort of speeches he will make. But it does not seem like ly that he will “keep mum on temperance.” The truth is, as we said la>t April, that the Republican party, a: far as it was represented by ts state convention, ran away from the liquor question, and repudiated its own legislation by mentioning other legislation of which it was' proud, and by ignoring utterly the county option law. its most recent legislation. Doubtless the convention made what seemed to it to be the wise choice politicallv. But the attir tude assumed is certain to involve the party in some slight degree of “embarrassment." The liquor question usually cuts both ways, and there are always men on both sides who are willing to deal with it on the basis of votes. The question with party managers. whether they be Republicans or Democrats generally is not whether a certain declaration on the liquor question is right, but whether it will have a good or bad effect on the political fortunes of the party. And this is as true of Indiana as of any other state. Certainly there are “embarrassmeius.’’ but the Democratic party and Mr. Bryan have no monopoly of them, as our \\ ashington contemporary will discover before the end of the campaign.—lndianapolis News.