Rensselaer Semi-Weekly Republican, Volume 41, Number 21, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 November 1908 — Takes Prohibitionists To Task. [ARTICLE]

Takes Prohibitionists To Task.

The following article which appeared in a recent issue of the Indianapolis Star is by an uncle of James Bishop, who recently married Miss Bertha Nichols. It takes the prohibitionists to task in no uncertain terms. A glance at the result of the vote in Indiana shows that there were enough prohibitionists in the state to have elected James E. Watson and a majority of the legislature, and they could have proven themselves practical reformers by voting that way. It was not that Mr. Marshall himself was in

favor of or opposed to temperance advancement, -it was the attitude of the two parties to the county option question, which the brewers openly said meant practical prohibition. In Jasper county there were 70 prohir bition votes for the national ticket and 63 for the state, showing that only 7 scratched their tickets and it is not certain that these scratched for Watson. The campaign was an educator, and has served to show the impractical position of prohibitionists. Here is the article contributed to the Star: To the Indianapolis Star: I want to say to “Workers for Wages,” in defense of “Disgusted Reformer,” that the latter has abundant reasons for repudiating the Prohibition party, inasmuch as that party i ignores any temperance reforms enacted or proposed by any other political party than its own, and that when the Republican party, as a party of power, made the great sacrifice, knowing at the same time that whole platoons would leave its ranks, and set about temperance legislation; and when the battle came on and the best men of the best party that ever existed were on the firing line, what did the Prohis do to succor the batter columns? Simply turned on their heels and ran away. W’hat have you done to help hold the vantage gained in that battle? When the election came to decide whether we should hold it, you, by your stolid indifference and partisanship, allowed your strength indirectly to go to the enemy of reform. The former victors were thus swept from the field, and the fruits of years of temperance legislation probably Jost. Why should not any sensible reformer be disgusted? If a city were in flames, knowing you could not save the city as a whole, you would not, judging by your present attitude, put forth a hand to save a portion of it. Your cry is state-wide and national prohibition, yet if either of the old parties should adopt this in their platforms I think your party would oppose them. Reforms must ride in on your wagon or not at all. Even now, only by close and systematic working of the field can saloons be ousted, and only by the hardest fight known in state politics was the option law passed. Hov, then, do you expect to annihilate the business? You hold that the Moore law and the option law are not temperance laws at all, yet thousands of redeemed and reformed men attest the utter falsity of that We had reason to believe you would help us, but you failed us in the hoqr of trial. Thousands of men whp were favorably considering you noyv bid you good-by. The Republican party will be in the field again in two years, and in triumph or defeat will persistently push forward by the left flank like Gen. Grant until we reach our Appomattox. ,CHARLES W. RICKETTS. Sheridan, Ind.