Rensselaer Republican, Volume 16, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 April 1884 — Temperance in Partisan Politics. [ARTICLE]

Temperance in Partisan Politics.

1 Bishop Merrill, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, has .an article upon the question of prohibition in the 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 Bislmpv-oU, 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 town, will vote for prohibition, as soon, as the question can be gotten before the people in a simple and direct form, free frorti political biases an d party complications; and that conviction has not abated. There are thousands ot voters in Ohio, as there are in till the States, whose solid judgments approve prohibition, and would vote for it on its merits; if permitted to do so without disturbing their political standing, but will riot go out of their party to do so. nor will they forsake the candidates nominated by their jyirty 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 the cause, the attitude of this large class of voters should be considered. My belief is that with them is the’balance of power and the ,thing to be sought after as c'f the first importance | issuehan issue as vvill permit every man to vote for or against prohibition, party, to his church,-or to iris favorite candidates for i !li:-e.’’ The writer continues: “Even a righteous cause requires ( wise management. Every factor in . the problem should have is place- ( Tv is will require an. unp-irtis an veyv i of the relation of the question of pro-; Mbit ion to the existing political parties. ; *** Tins issue U great enough to be j separated from al. partisan movements ; *: * * It is plainly unwise to commit prohibition to the keeping of any party,( and not less unwise to attempt to fo-ni j a distinct party on this ground. * * There is great d anger of Impatience nt delays, and too much readiness to re- ‘ gard postponement as def ent. Greet lAoral achievements require time, especially when the body of the people, must bf brought into action. Reforms . movfc slowly. * * Tn somethings delays are dangerous and often fatal. Not so iA’this contest.’ 1 " : “In the conclusion of his alignment and advice to temperance men, te>; Prohibitionists, the Bi-hop says: “Under fflsarccly any conceivable. • IrcnmstanccS would I ask any political party to put a prohibition plank in it* 1 platform, nor would I' consent to seek ‘ the Indorsement qfpolitieal convention. Let the parlies ©nd their machinery j ‘llone. This cause jU infinitely above their range of topics .n/. It b--iongs to the people ia freedom nnd ultimate aovereiihty, nml the appeal should b« n»««d<3 to th»people’s representatives in the r l>egjy-1 Ltdre upon grounds broader and

Llidor than any party stands upoh. In the meantime let every thing be done that Can-be to sustalh andjmprove the existing^.legislation 6n the subject. Experience has amply proven that ‘regulation does not regulate’—yet restraining statutory laws have some value, and with a live public sentiment behind' them, their beneficial power may be so increased as to proVe the practicability and C’ pediency of constitutional 'prohibition.” This language from one so high in authority and counsel as Bishop Metfill, is in sound practical contrast with the words of those who proclaim that they prefer free wifisky 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 submit a prohibitory constitutional amendment to a popular vote. Of the 61 votes in favor oftherosoluion, all but 9 were Republicans, and the 63 17. A suggestive fact in connection with this result is that the 9 Democrats who voted for the resolution are from .rural-eounties and-aU but 3of the 17 Republicans Who voted against it are from cities having over 20,000 inhabitants.'