Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 40, Number 102, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 September 1908 — About That “Alliance.” [ARTICLE]

About That “Alliance.”

Democratic papers in this State are accusing the Anti-Saloon League of forming an Alliance with the republican party. (They make no criticism of the brewers’ alliance with their own party.) According to’ the charge made, the Anti-Saloon League has gone over bodily into the' republican camp, and is working for the republican nominees throughout the state, but E. S. Shumaker, state superintendent of the Indiana AntiSaloon League, declares that this charge is untrue. “We are not bound to any political party,” he says: “The Anti-SaloOn league avoids alliance of any kind ’with any party. We study the individual candidates and choose from among them those we shall support. The fact is that the League saw red county local option and worked for it long before either state convention was held. The constitution of the League guarantees that in no case shall the League espouse the cause of any political party, as such, but will remain nonpartisan and will seek only the election of candidates who are in .accord with the' legislative policy of the League. Right new we are favoring the election of republican candidates for the legislature in some counties, while in numerous other counties we are working for democratic candidates. Then there are some counties where we are doing nothing at all, because the candidates on both tickets are unfavorable to our policy, and it makes no difference which side wins. For over four years the Indiana League has been seeking the enactment of a county unit law for the exclusion of saloons. When our attorney, R. C. Minton, drafted the original Moore remonstrane law in 1905, it had in it county, ward and township features. The committee on public morals, however, eliminated ti e county feature, so as to make the measure • correspond with the governor’s i ecommendations, and in the amended form the Moore bill was passed and Gov rnor Hanly signed it.

“In the legislative session of 1907, our attorney prepared and had introduced a county remonstrance bill. On account of the great battles cwaged about the blind tiger bill, which the Anti-Saloon League insisted should first be passed, and the 31,000 license bill, the county i emonstrance bill never had a chance to pass. Soon after the adjournment of the legislature in 1907 the AntlSajoon League decided to start a movement to make Indiana dry by 1912 and that the county local option law would be the best means of bringing about this condition. “On November 26, 1907, the trustees of the League jnet and decided to begin an active campaign for the enactment of a county unit local option law. This was over four months prior to the meeting of the state conventions. For four years the League had been advocating a county unit exclusion law, and for over a year had been advocating county local option as the best plan for bringing this about . . . . “During tints the wssteese of the League had been enlisting public sentiment on this question* so that both political parties felt that they must take cognizance of this sentiment We could not have prevented their taking notice of it officially had we done our best to prevent it “It is useless to there are candidates running for the legislature on both party tickets this year who are not in harmony with the utterances of their party platforms. Some republican candidates refuse to stand by their platform utterances on this subject, while some democrats are most heartily in favor of a county unit local option, law. “Under such circumstances the only thing the Anti-Saloon League can do is to sound each candidate In the different parties 'and to ascertain from him what he will do concerning a county local option law if eleccd. If the candidates of both parties aye unqualifiedly in favor of such a measure and will Support it, then the league will remain neutral. If one candidate favors it while the candilate of the other party is opposed or *efuses to commit himself, the duty >t the League in the premises will be lear. Butin qo case will a candidate >e Indorsed unless he stands squarely fn favor of a county local Option lew while his opponent does not”