Prohibition and a Third Party.
By Editor
THERE was never a time when the subject of temperance received so large a share of public attention as it does at present. And it is but recently that there has been any decided or general agreement amongst temperance people that prohibition is the true policy for the present time. It cannot, therefore, be considered surprising that there is considerable difference of opinion as to the best means to accomplish the desired end. For more than thirty years we have been uncompromising in advocacy of prohibition. At the first, our sentiments were shared by very few, even of those who professed to be the most earnest temperance workers. In 1850, our views of prohibition were openly opposed by Sons of Temperance. In 1877, we were vigorously opposed in a "Red Ribbon" meeting; and as late as 1879 we were opposed by a popular temperance lecturer when we gave our views in favor of prohibition. We have had many years to view the ground, and have tried to view it in its various phases, and we shall claim the privilege of retaining our opinion as to the best method of carrying it into effect. We are sorry to say that we have suffered no small amount of abuse for claiming this privilege. This abuse has been poured out upon us in private letters and in public prints, because we ventured to express doubts of the expediency of forming a prohibition political party, now commonly known as a "Third Party." A little political (third-party) sheet in California gratified its spirit of prejudice by assailing us in the most bitter terms, fairly exhausting its power of invective, because, as it claimed, we voted against prohibition in the last election. It even informed its readers that we worked for, and voted with, the Democratic party in order to oppose the cause of prohibition. Its accusations were so unjust and untruthful, and set forth in such a bitter spirit, that we did not think it was entitled to an explanation, and we gave it no notice. A letter from an Eastern State said it did not know how we could consistently claim to be Christians, and oppose the formation of a third party. We are thankful that our standard of Christianity is not so low as that. But in answer to civil queries, we will now say that at the time of the last election we were where we could not vote had we been inclined to do so. And as for our co-religionists in California, we never advised any one how to vote, and we never asked any one how he voted. We gave them credit for manhood enough to act conscientiously in the matter; and we understood that very few in the church of Oakland voted at all. They will probably pursue the same course in the future. Now let us look for a few moments at the situation. In different parts of the country, the political parties have taken different positions on the temperance question. In Maine it does not enter into politics at all, both parties uniting on prohibition. And this has been the case in every instance, as far as we have information, where prohibition has met with any notable success. In Kansas and Iowa it was well understood that the strength of prohibition sentiment was on the part of the Republican party, while in North Carolina and Mississippi it drew its chief support from the Democrats. The position assumed by the Lever, and other third-party papers, that the prohibitionists passed the amendment in Iowa without the aid of the Republicans, is a sheer absurdity. If the prohibitionists in Iowa were so strongly in the majority without any aid from Republicans, why was it that they gave so small a vote in favor of St. John and the third party in the late election? The Democratic party in Iowa took a stand against the prohibitory amendment, pledging to repeal the amendment if that party was successful. Under those circumstances, it seemed to us to be suicidal on the part of the prohibitionists to denounce the Republicans, and avow their intention, if possible, to defeat and break up that party. It needed no mathematical mind to see that if they had succeeded in their effort,—if they had drawn away from that party enough to throw the election into the hands of the opposing party,—they would have endangered all that has been gained in that State; and the certainty would have followed that they could not have recovered the ground so lost in many years. We have said, and we still say, because we firmly believe it, that the success—the permanent success—of prohibition, is not to be found in a third party, but in bringing the temperance men from both parties together on prohibition as a non-partisan issue. Our views are well expressed in the following remarks made in a temperance meeting, as reported in The Voice:— "Mr. Wallace, of Freeport, L. I., was reluctant to disturb the harmony of thought which had thus far prevailed. He protested against much that had been said. He believed that no one present would live to see prohibition triumphant through a separate political party. He voted with that party up to the time of the formation of this society. His church, which he represented here to-day, was then unanimous in support of this movement. It was plain that this was practical work by which something might be done. The result was so favorable that we came within two votes of success. Dr. Olin introduced the bill, and the result was surprising. It received the support of seventeen Democrats, and enough Republicans to bring the vote up to sixty-three. The consequence was, that a sentiment was created, and the majority would now vote for it. Dr. Olin did all he could for it, and the prohibitionists did all they could to defeat him. Senator Thomas did the best he could, and the prohibition party tried to defeat him. If we go to the Legislature in affiliation with the prohibition party, we shall be greeted deservedly with the cold shoulder. He doubted whether any member would now introduce the bill, as was the case in the Legislature of 1885. In Atlanta this success did not come through a third party. "Rev. Mr. Mead asked why. 'Because,' he said, 'the Legislature granted the request of the people, which our Legislature refuses to do.'" "Mr. Wallace resumed: 'If we want Constitutional prohibition, all signs indicate that we shall not get it through a third party. That method operates to reduce the strength of the movement. Look at Ohio, which, in 1883, gave 323,000 votes to the amendment, and now gives only 28,000 votes' [to a third party]. "In Ohio, he said, the cause is a by-word and a laughing-stock among the politicians. The third-party movement has resulted in Ohio's having a license Legislature. Never has Ohio voted for license. Did the fact that 323,000 votes had been frittered away to 28,000 help the cause? The impression was general in 1885 that the prohibition-party movement defeated the amendment in Ohio. If their efforts had been added to the amendment work, it would have been carried. A politician told him that voters would come to the polls with tickets prepared to vote for the amendment, and, finding men there working for the third party, they would indignantly throw away the prohibition vote. Speaking of this State, he said: 'We have been remiss in not trying to get the assembly. We nearly got a majority once, but in the last Legislature we were nowhere.' His pastor was not present, because he suspected that this was a third-party movement. Allusions had been made early in the meeting to the small number of ministers present. Might not this be the explanation? How could we get the thousands of clergymen actively at work in the cause?" Prohibition in Georgia, where it has been adopted, was carried by the members of both parties uniting on this question. And we regret that the proof has been given in third-party papers, that they think more of the third party than of the success of prohibition. When Governor St. John went to Georgia, he reported that influential men of both parties met him cordially, and gave his meetings and the cause of prohibition their united support. Like a sensible man, he did all he could to strengthen their hands, and to encourage them in their work. But the third-party papers raised a loud cry against the Governor, because he made no effort, and took no steps, to organize a third party in Atlanta. Governor St. John well knew that if he took a single step in that direction, these "influential men of both parties" would at once turn their backs on him; and these third-party politicians knew to a certainty that if he had taken that step prohibition would have been most wofully defeated in Atlanta. Now in view of these facts, we think we have the better right to call in question the soundness and thoroughness of their professed love for the cause of prohibition. And when they denounce all but themselves as time-serving politicians, they must remember that others, as well as themselves, are aware that the success of the third party means a "new deal" in the almost countless number of Government offices. We insist that the fact that a person prefers the only method that ever has been attended with any success, and the only one that presents any reasonable prospect of permanent success, is no evidence that he is time-serving, or that he looks to political preferment. We have before called attention to one point, and an important one, but as yet we have not seen any notice taken of it by the third-party prohibitionists. It is this: If prohibition is secured as a political issue, the decision will be liable to be reversed at the very next election. The safety of the cause in Atlanta, and in the State of Maine, is assured by the fact that it does not depend upon the success of a political party; whichever party is in power, it is still safe, because indorsed by both parties. We doubt whether it would be well for our country to have one party continuously in power. If prohibition triumphed only by the triumph of a new or third party, it would be imperiled at every subsequent election. Again, no party can hope to retain power if elected on a single issue. If it had not some policy of Government clearly defined, beside that single issue, it would fall to pieces by the time of the next election by reason of internal dissensions. Looking at the subject in any and every way, we have no confidence in the third-party movement. If the prohibitionists will cease to repel and abuse their friends, to whatever party they may belong, and will try to draw together on this issue the friends of the cause in all parties, past experience proves that they may hope to succeed. Otherwise we consider their case hopeless.