Newspaper Page Text
T. A. HAVRON, Publisher,
SPEECH OF EX-HOT. ST. JOHN
Before the Prohibition Stole Conven
tion at Topeka, Bee. 1(5, 1884.
Mr. President and Citizens:
Many times have I addressed the people
in this Senate Chamber, but never when I
felt it was a greater honor to do so than
now. [Applause.] Anybody can drift
with the majority—even a chip can float
down stream—but when it comes to' stem
the current of political tyranny, falsehood
and bitter persecution, as Prohibitionists
have had to do for a few months past, it
requires just a little pluck, a devotion to
principle, such devotion as impelled-the
large number of delegates in this Conven
tion to come here through one of the sever
est storms of the year, to stand up, und
t)e counted, upon a platform hat leaves no
one in doubt as to the position we occupy
in the great struggle against the liquor
traffic. There is but two sides to the ques
tion—license or prohibition. [Cries of
that’s so.] Our party is unequivocally for
prohibition. The old party that survived
the November election is against it. The
Republican party having deliberately com
mitted suicide, whoever attempts to occupy
neutral ground will be compelled eventu
ally to come to us or go into the Democratic
camp. [Applause.] 1 gave nearly twenty
eight years’ loyal service to the Republican
party. I cast my first ballot for Fremont
and freedom, and I am voting for freedom
yet, freedom of ballot, freedom of con
science, freedom of soul. [Applause.] I
am not here to-night to defend the Prohibi
tion party. It has already ceased to be an
infant, and is abundantly” able to take care
of itself. Nor am I here to indulge in per
sonal abuse or villification, as I prefer to
leave that for those who have nothing bet
ter to uphold their cause. [ Applause.]
My aim shall be to show that the Prohi
bitionists have not changed front, but are
standing to-day just where they were
taught to stand by a class of Kansas Re
publicans who seem not to be imbued with
the old Republican spirit of “charity for
all and malice toward none,” but rather
to think that the way to restore life to a
Eolitieal party is to bitterly abuse and say
ard things about its opponents.
At the session of our State Legislature in
1879, to avoid other legislation that threat
ened immediate danger to the liquor traffic,
the Senate unanimously passed a joint res
olution to be submitted to a vote of the
people, so amending the constitution of the
State as to forever prohibit ths manufac
ture and sale of intoxicating liquors as a
beverage. The friends of the saloons voted
for this measure, feeling confident that it
would easily be defeated when it reached
the House, and notwithstanding the Re
publicans had the necessary two-thirds
vote to pass it through the House, the
measure would not have been submitted to
the people had it not been for the aid of
Democratic and Greenback members of
that body. When we commenced the cam
paign for the adoption of the amendment
the Republican politicians, as a rule, were
opposed to it, for it was generally believed
at first that its success was at least very
doubtful; but as the campaign progressed
and the people became more and more
interested in the success of the amend
ment, the politicians began to get “on the
fence” and in the course of time they com
menced to come down, one by one, then in
twos and fours, until eventually they were
nearly all for Constitutional Prohibition,
and when the votes were counted it was
ascertained that the measure had about
8,000 majority. At this same election new
members were chosen for the House and
Senate. This Legislature passed our pres
ent prohibition law. ITp to this time, re
member, the Republican party had not
committed itself on the question of pro
hibition. In 1882, however, at its State
Convention the following resolutions were
adopted as a part ol its platform
“Resolved, That we declare ourselves un
qualifiedly in favor of the prohibition of the
manufacture and of the sale of intoxicating
liquors as a beverage, and pledge ourselves
to such additional legislation as shall secure
the rigid enforcement of the constitutional
provision upon this subject in all parts of
the State.”
“ Resolved, That we request our delegation
in Congress to secure suchiin amendment to
the revenue laws as will prevent the issuingof
receipts or stumps to sell intoxicating liquors
to any persons other than those authorized
so to do under the State laws.”
Upon that platform the party, although
it had a legitimate majority of at least
30,000 in the State, deliberately defeated
the head of the State ticket and elected a
“Bourbon Democrat’* and strong Anti-
Prohibitionist as (Governor. At the same
election a new House of Representatives
was chosen, which, with the Senate that
helped to pass the prohibitory law, com
posed the Legislature of 1883. Both
branches being overwhelmingly Republic
an the political duty devolved upon that
body to make good the solemn pledges that
the party had made in its platform by
giving to the people “such additional leg
islation as shall secure the rigid enforce
ment of the constitutional provision
upon this subject (prohibition) in
afl parts of the State.” Did it
do it? No. Yet if the party had desired
to have been true to the principles of pro
hibition the Legislature could have not only
passed and sent to the Governor for his ap
proval a law to carry out the pledges made
in the Republican platform, but in case he
had vetoed the bill, there were a sufficient
number of Republican members in each
branch to have passed it over his veto. But
nothing was done by the Legislature for
prohibition, and the party’s pledges to the
people touching that matter have been
wholly ignored. The faith of the Prohibi
tionists in the Republican party’s fidelity
to prohibition having been somewhat
shaken by the result of the State election
in 1882, and fearing that the Legislature
would do but little, if anything, to help
along the cause with a view to encouraging
that, body to be true to its pledges, a
State Prohibition Convention, com
posed of over 1,200 delegates,
representing every county in the
State, assembled at Topeka the 9th of Jan
uary, 1883, being the day before the inau
guration of the recently elected Democratic
Governor and the convening of the Legis
lature of 1883.
During the session of the convention the
Hon. Albert Griffin, of Manhattan, de
livered to the assembled delegates u very
able, instructive and interesting address, in
which he laid down a few fundamental
principles for the guidance of many of us
who recognized in him an able leader, fully
competent to point out the way in which
we should go. He commenced his speech
by truthfully saying:
•‘1 have been announced to speak on ‘The
relation of Prohibition to the Republican
party.’ but my subject is more properly ‘The
relation of Prohibitionists to the Republican
party.’ It is a common practice for the ag
gressors to charge their opponents with ‘be
ginning the contest.’ In tne old days, the
pro-slaverv men, by such acts as the fugiti#'
slave law and tho repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, continually made slavery a sub
ject of political action, and at the same time
vehemently denounced the Abolitionists for
stirring up strife. In like manner, the
friends of the saloon interest are perpetually
asking ‘Why can’t you let prohibition stay
out of politics? Temperance is a moral
question, why keep thrusting it into the po
litical arena? Our answer is, that the ene
mies of prohibition and not its friends have
Bade it a partisan question,"
TRENTON, DADE COUNTY. GA.. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4. 1885.
How inspiring were the following words
of encouragement to those who were in
doubt as to their duty in that trying hour
when devotion to party pointed in one di
rection and adherence to principle in
another:
“We care comparatively little about the
offices, but the principle will never be aban
doned and kept in the background. You
may think this is unwise, but we do not.
Present defeat may be possible on our line,
but a victory if gained will be glorious and
valuable; whereas, if enough concessions
arc made to reclaim any considerable portion
of the whisky end of the party, a victory
would be worse than a defeat.”
But our distinguished friend gives us the
very best reason why we should stand
firmly by the principle of prohibition.
Hear him:
“Some Anti-Prohibitionists seem to really
think that it is unreasonable for Prohibi
tionists to insist that the party must advo
cate a principle which was first put in the
Constitution, then in the laws, and afterward
in the party platform. 1 ask of them
in return: If prohibition is eliminated, what
will there be left to tight over? There are no
National party issues. The old question of
slavery, reconstruction, manhood suffrage,
civil rights, repudiation, etc., have all been
definitely acted upon and the results at least
ostensibly accepted by the Democrats. Upon
all important questions—such as the tariff,
currency, banking, control of corporations,
civil service reform, etc., each party is di
vided. The only square issue is which party
shall fill the offices.’ ” [Applause.]
Mr. Griffin tells us that their are no “Na
tional party issues” and puts the ques
tion: “If prohibition is eliminated what
will there be left to fight over?” To which
every fair minded citizen must respond
nothing, absolutely nothing, except as he
well puts it, a scramble' to see “which
party shall fill the offices.” With what
prophetic eye the gentleman then proceeds
to penetrate the future when he says:
“Under such circumstances, it is inevitable
that new issues shall force themselves to the
front, and unless existing parties accept
them, new ones will be formed to advocate
and oppose. There are many indications that
constitutional prohibition will soon become
the all-absorbing National question, and
Kansas will have been the leader.”
Then observe how clearly and forcibly
the speaker draws the line between “con
science” and “pride.” He says:
“If we should undertake to go to you, con
science would rise up to harour passage, and
follow us with never-ending reproaches, but
the most of you in coming to us, would find
nothing but pride in the way, and at every
step would be cheered by the consciousness
that your arrival would help preserve the
purity of the innocent, strengthen or pro
tect the weak, and alleviate the sufferings of
the desolate.”
At this same convention the Hon. James
F. Legate made a very able speech, in
which he said:
“To the temperance people let me say, if
you lower your standard from prohibition a
hair's breadth your cause will fall like an
avalanche from prohibition to high license,
from high license to low license, and from
low license to free whisky, and it will be as
certain as the laws of gravitation. A train of
cars on the top of a hill, starting downward,
may be stopped by a boy with tlie brake, but
once started no human power can check its
course. It laughs at human ingenuity and
human power. It goes crashiug onward to
the lowest point. The car of prohibition is
at the top of the hill, bind the brake closely
and prevent its moving a hair’s breadth
downward. This is an age of progress
and nothing can stop its onward
maren. If a man is in Ihe way,
the army will march over him and
leave him in the rear. If a church is in the
way, it will march over that, and if a party is
in the way, the army will march over that
and grind it to dust. Let me say to every
man, young and old, prepare for the living
future. Dully not with the dead past, for
you will have nothing but the graveyards
and their silent tenants for your companions.
The present betokens a future inspiring
hope. Let us march onward to victory.”
Then Dr. Krohn, of Atchison, noted for
his terse and forcible expressions, in speak
ing of the appeal being made about that
time for “harmony in the party,” said:
"I am opposed to giving auy countenance
to the matter of hanaouy and compromise
which is talked of. Do not believe in meet
ing them on any middle grounds. We are
in the wagon, and, God helping us, we will
drive.”
I shall never forget the thrilling effect
the brave words of Dr. Krohn had upon
that convention. “No compromise.” We
“will not consent to the slightest backward
step.” “The car of prohibition is at the
top of the hill, bind the brake closely aud
prevent its moving a hair’s breadth down
ward.” These were the watchwords heart
ily cheered by that convention, and unani
mously endorsed by the following resolu
tions :
“Resolved, That we hereby pledge ourselves
to vote for no man or party favoring licensed
dramshops.”
“Resolved, That we are in favor of an
amendment to the Constitution of the United
States forever prohibiting the manufactur
ing. importation and sale of intoxicating
drink as a beverage, and that our Senators
and Representatives in Congress be ear
nestly requested to favor such an amend
ment.”
Twenty-three hundred dollars was then
subscribed by members of the convention
to carry forward the principle of prohibi
tion, and Hon. A. B. Campbell was chosen
as President of the Kansas State Temper
ance Union. The convention Raving de
clared in favor of National prohibition and
its members pledged themselves to vote
for “no man or party favoring licensed
dramshops,” I endorsed these two propo
sitions then and stand by them now. [Ap
plause.] Mr. Campbell, in his first annual
address as President of the Kansas State
Temperance Union, among other things
says:
“We must not yield an inch to political in
fluences which may be brought to bear to in
duce us to step backward for the sake of
temporary ad vantage and questionable suc
cess. There is but one royal road to success
in Kansas, and that is the straight and nar
row path of fidelity to prohibition, as ex
pressed in our constitution and laws. Any
compromise will be fatal to us and the party
we seek to serve.”
It will be observed that all through the
foregoing addresses and resolutions the
spirit of “no compromise” crops out on
every hand, and even at a much later date
we find our dignified and brainy friend
aud former co-worker, Mr. Griffin, through
the columns of his excellent paper, “ The
Manhattan Nationalist of July 4, 1884,
telling the people that “the election or de
feat of Blaine and Logan depends very
largely on the action of the next (Kansas)
Republican State Convention.” * * *
He then administers a well merited rebuke
when he says further on, “The Federal
oftice holders «nd others who arc fighting
the battles of the brewers and dramsellers
of the Nation w ill do well to call a halt,
and can not do it too soon.” Then Brother
Griffin copies from the Junction City
Tribune the following: “Let a platform
(Republican) be made declaring positively
for the principle of prohibition of thu liquor
traffic,” and proceeds to say “these are
manly utterances,” in which declaration
I heartily concur. Bui Mr. Griffin finally in
the Nationalist of July 11th lays down
his ultimatum and sounds his last warning
to the Republican State Convention that
convened at Topeka five days thereafter in
the following emphatic words: “It is not
true that prohibition Republicans ask the
party to adopt a new creed. Their demand
is that it shall stand by the position delib
erately taken twio years ago. After the
matter had been fully discussed before the
people, the platform was adopted by an
overwhelming majority.” * * * The
whole ticket was nominated on that, plat
form and every candidate was elected, ex-
cept the one who was treacherously knifed
bv the political ring that dominated the
State and still largely controls it. To a
considerable extent these men are now in
sisting that the platform then built shall be
destroyed. It is against this act that Pro
hibitionists remonstrate and give formal no
tice that they will not submit.” Whatwns
“the position deliberately taken two years
ago?” Let us repeat it:
“Resolved, That we declare ourselves un
qualifiedly in favor of the prohibition of the
manufacture and of the sale of intoxicating
liquors as a beverage, and pledge ourselves
to such additional legislation as shall secure'
the rigid enforcement of the constitutional
provision upon this subject in all parts of the
State.”
Now, here is the resolution of the Repub
lican State Convention of July 1(1, 1884,
which shows how the party stood by “the
position deliberately taken two years ago.”
Resolved, “That prohibition has, by a vote
of the people, without distinction of party,
been adopted as the organic law of this
State.” Here it will be observed, prohibi
tion is repudiated as a Republican measure.
Next; “Resolved, That we favor a faithful
and honest enforcement of the constitu
tional amendment, that the full effects of
prohibition may be realized, that the de
clared will of the people may be respected,
and that the majesty of the law may be
vindicated.”
No word for the principle of prohibition.
No promise to amend the law. No declara
tion against resubmission. In short, only
a promise to enforce the law. What party
would have dared to have declared against
the enforcement of law? What less could
the Republican party have said touching
prohibition? Upon this platform a man
was nominated for Governor who, not only
never was a Prohibitionist, but who, at a
time when the people were struggling to
adopt the nmendiuent, fought them bitterly
through the columns of the Atchison
Champion , owned and edited by him, and
even long after the prohibitory law
took effect publicly advertised
and still advertises saloons, kept openly in
violation of law in his own home city of
Atchison. Thus*, to the extent of the
amount paid for such advertisements he
shares in the profits arising from the vio
lation of the constitution and laws of our
State. [Applause.] Dr. Krohn was a del
egate in that Republican Convention.
Where was that wagon in which he was
driving at the Prohibition Convention in
January, 1883? What became of his “No
compromise” declarations? [ Applause.]
Who was there to “bind the brake closely
and prevent its (the car of Prohibition)
moving a fair’s breadth downward
[Applause.] Where was our distinguished
leader, the Hon. Albert Griffin, just about
.that time? Was he a delegate in that Con
vention? Yes. Did he make a speech?
Yes. Did he “give formal notice that they
would not submit?” Well, no. Then what
did he say? Why he said: “We have in
this platform made our concessions, and we
ask the anti-Prohibitionists to make
theirs.” [Laughter and applause.] What
else diil that Convention do? Why it de
clared :
“That the National Republican platform
meets with our hearty and enthusiastic
endorsement as the best statement of liv
ing principles ever presented to the Amer
ican people.” f.
Now let us examine briefly, at teast, one
thing that the Republican National Con
vention refused to do, and then turn to
what it did do. It is well known that at
the earnest solicitation of many Republi
can Prohibitionists, the Executive Commit
tee of the National Prohibition party post
poned the Convention of that party which
had been called to meet at Pittsburg in
May, until July 23, with the hope that
meantime the Republican party in its Na
tional Convention. June 3, would in some
manner give satisfactory recognition to the
cause of temperance, so that Prohibition
ists could consistently remain with, and
work for “the old party.” Prohibitionists
who had always loyally stood by the Re
publican party turned toward 'Chicago,
anxiously watching and waiting for the
result. Petitions and memorials from all
parts of the country were presented to that
Convention, and Miss Francis E. Willard,
President of the National Woman's Chris
tian Temperance Union, representing the
Unions of forty-eight States and Territo
ries, including the District of Columbia,
made an earnest, very able, and eloquent
appeal to the Committee on Platform, not
asking the committee for an endorsement of
the principle of prohibition, but asking
ouly, that the following resolution be made
a part of the Republican platform:
“ Resolved, That this convention recoin*
mend the submission by Congress to the
Legislatures of the States of a joint resolu
tion proposing an amendment to the Const i*
tutionof the United States, providing for
the prohibition of the traffic in alcoholic
beverages, that the same may be adopted
or rejected, according to the will of the
people.”
r r •
It w ill be observed that this names only
alcoholic, but not malt liquors: that it only
asks a recognition of one of the funda
mental principles upon which civil govern
ment is based, to-wit: the right of the peo
ple to be heard through the ballot. But
even this very modest request was not only
denied by the committee, but ignored by
the convention. But not so "with the
iiquor traffic, for that convention declared
that “the largest diversity of industry is
most productive of general prosperity "and
of the comfort and independence of the
people.” Now, this was not only intended
to, but does, as clearly include.the manu
facturer and sale of whisky and beer, as it
does sugar and molasses, and as we will
show hereafter, was used to catch the
“saloon vote.” While the convention
turned a deaf ear to the plea for our homes,
it declar ' that “We recognise the import
ance of b..eep husbandry in the United
States, the serious depression which it is
now experiencing and the danger threat
ening its future prosperity, and we there
fore respect the demand of the representa
tives of this important agricultural inter
est, for readjustment of duty upon foreign
wool in order that such industry shall have
full and adequate protection." Protection
to wool, pig iron, even swhisky and beer,
but the privilege of voting on an amend
ment to the Federal Constitution to pro
tect the homes of the people against the
destructive influence of the liquor traffic
denied! and this platform called “the best
statement of living principles ever pre
sent h 1 to the American people.”
This Convention nominated as the candi
date of the Republican party for President
a distinguished gentleman, who, no longer
ago than November 28, 1883, in a letter to
the Philadelphia Press, proposed to make
the liquor traffic a permanent source of rev
nue to all the States and Territories, while
the nominee for Vice-President a few years
ago favored devoting the revenue derived
from this great evil to the education of
the youth of the land. In other words,
to build a school house, and then open
a dozen saloons near by to sustain it. i Au
plause.l
On the Bth day of September, 1884, a
State election was held m Maine, the home
of the Presidential nominee of the Repub
lican party. At that election a Governor
aud other State, as well as district and
county officers, were elected. There was
also an amendment to the constitution of
that State, prohibiting the traffic in intox
icating liquors as a beverage, submitted to
a vote of the people at that same election.
Mr. Blaine voted his party ticket from
Governor down, but when it came to a de
cision between the homes of his State and
the saloons, he said: “For myself I decided
not to vote at all on the question.” [Cries
of “shame.”] To show that Mr. Blaine as
late as October 27th was still dodging, I
have only to call your attention to the fol
lowing telegram:
Glean, N. Y„ October 27, 9 a. m.
James G. Blaine, Jamestown:
Will you please answer the following ques
tions at Glean to-day, that the people jnay
know the position you anil the Republican
party occupy:
Is the Kepublican party in favor of pro
hibiting the liquor traffic in the District of
Columbia and the Territories by Congres
sional legislation?
Will you, if elected, recommend such legis
lation?
Are you in ftvorof eneouragingthemanu
facture of intoxicating liquor as ono of the
existing forms of American industry.
Would you make the manufacture and sale
of iutoxicating liquors permanent, in order
to make the tax thereon a permanent re
source to all the States?
W. H. H. Bartham.
This was delivered personally to Mr.
Blaine, at Jamestown, and a printed copy
also given to him upon his arrival atOlean,
where his magnificent palace car stopped
long enough for him to address the people
who had gathered there to meet him; but
upon these questions he was silent. But
not so at Rochester where he addressed u
large audience, in which were many prom
inent brewers and liquor dealers. He said:
“The Republican party embodies in its creed
four distinct and important doctrines,”
the third of which he declared to be “en
couragement of every fonn of American in
dustry,” which was heartily cheered, es
pecially by all engaged in the manufacture
and sale of whisky and beer. This dec
laration was in accord with the Chicago
platform and met the hearty approval of the
brewers, or at least a portion of them, as
will clearly appear by reference to a letter
published in the New York Tribune of
October 11, 1884, by a “Republican
Brewer,” in which he says:
“Messrs. Schurmunn and Clausen say that,
we favor Cleveland because the majority of
Prohibitionists in this and the Western States
are Republicans. I say, gentlemen, In reply,
that I believe they are, but when we take a
survey of the whole country, what do we
find? That the Democratic State of Missouri
charges larger license fees than any other
State in the Union; that in the Democratic
States of Maryland, Georgia, Tennessee and
Mississippi, local option and Prohibition ex
ists to a larger extent than it does in any
other portion of our country. This fact
proves that Mr. Blaine was correct when he
'Pd that Prohibition Was not a National
or issue. This being the case let us
not do anything to antagonize a party that
has always treated the brewing Interests
fairly, whose policy is to foster, protect and
encourage home Industries and which should
uot be held responsible for thq opinions and
acts of a few men who claim membership In
the party.”
IV hose policy is, says this brewer, “to
foster, protect and encourage home indus
tries.” “Greatest diversity of industry,”
says the platform. “Every form of Amer
ican industry,” says Mr. Blaine. How
good it is for brethren to dwell in peace
and harmony together. [Laughter and
applause.] But hear this brewer further.
He says:
“Our National organization is twenty-four
years old. During all these years the Repub
licans have been in power iu National affairs,
and i *ubmil to every candid brewer, he he
Democrat or be he Republican, if the brewing
interests of our country have not grown to
immense proportions, if our rights aud our
interests nave not. been protected, fostered
and encouraged by our Government?”
It will be • observed that this brewer
heartily agrees with Mr. Blaine in treating
Prohibition as a “local issue,” but when it
comes to the question of protecting, foster
ing and encouraging the beer interest, that,
at once becomes “National,” for he says
thoy, the brewers, have a “National organ
ization” twenty-four years old, by the way,
just the age of Republican rule. [Applause.]
Two hundred thousand retail liquor
dealers in the United States each holding
a United States Government permit and
each gallon of whisky manufactured con
tributing ninety cents to Gov
ernment, while’ thousands of saloons exist
in the District of Columbia aud tM» Terri
tories and great quantities of intoxicating
liquors are imported annually, all by virtue
of authority derived from laws passed by
the Congress of the United States, and then
tell us that the question of prohibition is
not National! [Applause] Lei a citizen
sell intoxicaiing liquors in Kansas without
having paid his twenty-five dollars blood
money to the United States Government
and you will see “Uncle Sam” step across
State lines, a™ not stop to say to our Gov-
or othereitate authority, “by your
leave® 1 but arrest and imprison such per
son, nd no State law will protect him.
[Appmuse, and cries of that’s so.] If the
has power to “foster,” “pro
tect” and “encourage” an evil, it has power
to suppress it. and humanity demands that
that power should be p ortptly exercised.
[Applause.]
Let us boar in mind that the laws under
which the liquor interests have been “fos
tered, protected and encouraged,” during
the past “twenty-four years” were passed
under a Republican administration, and no
attempt has been made to suppress this
great evil. Nor is there a single Republi
can daily newspaper, published in any of
the great cities, that did not oppose Prohi
bition during the last campaign, and the
same may be said of at least nine-tenths of
all the Republican papers in the United
states, while Republican politicians, as a
rule, opposed or remained neutral on the
question; and since the election this same
party has not only burned and hanged
Prohibitionists in effigy, but indulged
iu a spirit of bitter persecution and intoler
ance that would put to shame the Pro
slavery party of thirty years ago, and for
no other reason than that we refused to
vote the Republican ticket, aud choose to
exercise the right of a free ballot and free
conscience, by voting for a principle
that was dear to us but by
that party ignored. [Applause.]
It will not do to say that this intolerant
bulldozing spirit is "confined to the “riff
raff” of the party, for as yet, w ith a very
fow honorable exceptions, the Republican
press has not only failed so condemn it, but
as a rule, either directly or indirectly en
dorsed it, and such Republican papers as
the Kansas City Journal, even encourages
mob violence, as will be seen by referring
to its editorial columns of November 7, in
w hich it says:
“When the people of Kansas, and of his
own home, Olathe, come to remember what
they have done for St. John, and, staunch
Republicans as they are, come to calculate
upon the probabilities and consequences of
his candidacy against them, it would not sur
prise us if, as we have said, Bt. John were
taken to the common back of the deaf and
dumb asylum at Olathe and there be made to
implore the forgiveness of his fellow-citizens
itor his treason in such loud tones that the
inmates of tffe asylum will hear aud be able
to respond along with the rest in imposing a
sentence or invoking mercy for his conduct.
We would not advise, however, the tar and
feather application, unless Olathe has con
tracted for enough tar ami feathers to coat
all the political cranks who have voted for
St. John, as well as this traitorous individual
himself.”
Aud this was copied bv the Topeka Com
monwealth and called “a Hue editorial.”
All who voted the Prohibition ticket are
termed “political cranks,” and myself a
“traitor.” Now I ask to wha am I a
“traitor?” Why, we aro told to the Re
publican party. That it “has done so
umch for you.” In the first, play, let jue
suggest that political parties never do any
thing for the individual’s good. It is al
ways the good of the party that is looked
to. [Applause and cries of “that’s so.”]
In the second place, I call ydur attention
to the fact that so long as I remained with
the party, I was true to it. I didn’t stay
in its camp and betray it, or treacherously
connive at the defeat of any portion of its
ticket. When the time came that I could
no longer consistently and conscientiously
work in its ranks, I at once stepped out, so
no one could be deceived, anil everybody
would knoir where I stood. Tf this be trea
son, then Charles Sumner, William Lloyd
Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Ulysses S,
Grant, Abraham Lincoln, John A. Logan
and James G. Blaine, are all to be classed
as “traitors,” for each one of them
once left the party to which ho
belonged and joined another party. And
without desiring to be personal permit me
to state that upon this basis our own State
of Kansas can furnish a very distinguished
lot of “traitors.” [Great applause.] Allow
me also to suggest that had itrnot been for
the political “traitors” who dared to stand
up and be counted for a principle the Re- :
publican party would have never been or- \
ganized. [Cries of that’s so.J But we are
told that the Kansas State Temperance
Union is against us. I think that, as it is
now organized, that is true. But should it
be? Let us see. The Union was organized
years ago as a non partisan association and
has up to the last political campaign been
conducted as such, funds for its support
being solicited from, and contributed by
the people, without regard to race, condi
tion, religion or politics. Until its State !
Convention, which met at Topeka the 19th !
of November, 1884, the Union had not
united with, or become a part of, or en
dorsed any political party. But at that
convention it tacked itself on to the Re
publican party by a vote of the majority
of the delegates in the adoption of the fol
lowing resolutions:
“Resolved, That the Republican party of
Kansas, by adopting a platform that was sat
isfactory to the mass of Prohibitionists, and
electing State officers and a Legislature
pledged to the rigid enforcement of the Con
stitution, “to the end that the full effects of
prohibition may be realized,” has done all
that reasonable Prohibitionists should de
mand, and is at this time entitled to the cor
dial support of temperance men.
Resolved, That as long as the attitude of
the two leading parties in this State remains i
unchanged, we are unalterably opposed to j
the formation or maintenance of an Inde- :
pendent Prohibition party; but all temper
ance people are urgently invited to co-oper '
ate with this Union to secure those results
all good men desire.”
Now we have already seen-that the Re
publican platform referred to makes no
pledge for needed amendments to the Pro
hibition law, no opposition to resubmission,
no declaration in favor of the principle of
prohibition, but renounces all responsibility
on the part of the party for the adoption
of the Prohibitory amendment, anil simply
promises to enforce the laws. “Only this
and nothing more.”
Here is a complete surrender to the Re
publican party, without a single word of
condemnation for its intolerent bulldozing
spirit towards its political opponents. But
the Union not content to indorse the Re
publican party, notwithstanding the third
party Prohibitionists had adopted a plat
fiprni uneipxivacally indorsing the principle
of prohibition, mid against resubmissiou
and for needed amendments to the law;
declared against an “Independent Prohibi
tion party,” and our good Brother Camp
bell, its President, in his annual address,
could not refrain from slapping many of
his former co-workers in the face, by say
ing:
“Out of more than 100,000 Prohibition voters
there were only found 4,495 willing to stab
the party of progress and reform, and assist
the most corrupt political organization in
this or any other land to the control of this
Nation: an organization which by its plat
form and candidates had demonstrated its
hatred of temperance in every form.”
The city of Atchison has £een in open
rebellion against the Prohibitory law ever
since its passage. The party of “progress
and reform” had abundant opportunity to
adopt measures at the Legislative session
of 1883, to carry out its pledges to suppress
nullification, but it failed to do it. This
party of “progress and reform” nominated
aud elected Colonel John A. Martin, a life
long Anti-Prohibitionist, as Governor of
Kansas. Colonel Martin resides in Atchi
son, aud is editor and proprietor of the
Atchison Champion, one of the mediums
through which liquor dealers advertise to
the world the exact locality where they can
be found ready for ten cents a drink to
violate the constitution and laws
of Kansas. [Applause.] Now that
kind of “progress and reform” may
suit our friend Campbell, but I don’t be
lieve it does. Certainly it will take a long
time to reach the acme of prohibition by
that route. But possibly a letter of the
Secretary of the Union, of which the fol
lowing is a copy, will afford the people a
little information touching this matter that
has not heretofore been generally known
Here it is: .
“Office of State Temper ante Union, I
Topeka, Kan.. October It*, 1884. (
J. W. Stewart. Esq., Auburn. Kan.:
Dear Sir:— Your card of recent date re
ceiyed. In reply, will say that Mr. Campbell
is still President of the State Union, and f®
also State Organizer and Lecturer, for which
lie is paid sl,B.K)«a year. At the last sessio.*
of our Executive Committee his service*
were tendered to the Kepuhf-'an State Cen
tral Committee for such meetings as they
may desire him to hold during the campaign.
Hetulksfor Blaine and Martin, lor prohibi
tion and against resulnnission.
Yours truly, J ames A. Troutman.
Now is it not just a little bit strange that
the money solicited from the churches,
Sabbath schools and citizens generally,
without regard to party, to aid what was
supposed to be a non-part izan organization,
should thus be used in the interest of men
who were not Prohibitionists, and for the
success of a national party that absolutely
refused to favor the modest request of
the friends of temperance to have the priv
ilege judgment upon the great
est evil of the age at the ballot box? Aud
all this was done, too, in the face of a timely
warning, given by “the Daily Capital," of
Topeka, a Republican paper, (whose editor,
Major Hudson, has always been at heart
an earnest Prohibitionist,) in its issue of
May 2d, 1884, in which it is truthfully said:
“Nothing can be more disastrous to a non
partisan organization iike the Kansas State
•Temperance Union than to be used
bv wire-pulling politicians in the in
terest of some office seekers.” Does
this look like progress and reform?
Thus this once grand organization
that, until it entered partisan politics, was
free from dissension, becomes simply -tin
annex >f a political party, practically ex
cluding from membership all who feel that
they can not consistently and conscien
tiously train in the Republican ranks.
[Applause and cries of that's so.] So I
submit that while the Union has declared
against us, it ought not to have done so.
But in view of the fact, that the campaign
was over, and it had already done all in its
power for the Republican, and ayainst
the Prohibition partv, it should
“with charity for all and malice
toward none,” at least, until the
next political campaign rolled around,
have met temperance workers upon the
same non-partisan basis uporf which it has
appealed to the whole people for funds to
carry on its work. [Applause.]
The Prohibition party of to-day stands
uuon tuatulaukof the Republican platform
VOL I.—NO. 49.
erf 1882, that endorsed th* principle of pro
hibition, and the declarations of Messrs.
Griffin, Legate and Krohn, which I have
quoted, as made prior to the Republican
State Convention of 1884, and the resolu
tions referred to, adopted by the Prohibi
tion Statp Convention of January, 1883,
and in the language of Mr. Griffin used in
July last, “give formal notice that they will
not submit” to a single backward step.
[Applause.] So far as I am personally
concerned, I have simply done what my
conscience tells me is right. I have worked
and voted for prohibition and Prohibi
tionists. I have made no “concessions” to
the “Anti-Prohibitionists.” I have opposed
all parties which dared not openly fight the
liquor traffic. The Democratic party had
no claims on me, nor did I have any on it.
I never voted its ticket. It never pre
tended to be for prohibition, it deceived no
one touching this matter. The Republican
party has quisled the people. It has pre
tended to be a moral party, while at the
same time it has “fostered and protected”
the liquor interests until the rum power
has grown to gigantic proportions. And
while it has been brave aud aggressive in
dealing with important measures in its
early history, of late years it has grown
cowardly, and become, to sa’y the least of
it, a passive looker-on in the great struggle
between the home and the saloon, appar
ently caring but little which prevails,
seemingly having no ambition that rises
above a scramble for the offices. And now,
because I refused to be whipped into
line under the crack of the old party lash
aud reluctantly consented to lead a party
composed of sober, law-abiding citizens
who thought more of the principle of pro
hibition than they did of mere partisan
politics, and whose appeals for recognition
had been spurned by both the old parties, I
ain denounced by such distinguished Re
publicans as the Hon. Albert Griffin, who,
only a short time ago, so ably and
prophetically pointed out to me the path of
duty which I have faithfully tried to fol
low, as a “traitor,” a “Judas,” a “Bene
dict Arnold,” “Jefferson Davis,” etc. Now
I will not apply to Brother Griffin or any
other Republican such endearing names,
because to do so would not be argument.
Besides, I very much doubt if such a course
toward those who differ with me in opin
ion would command the respect of decent
people, or tend to elevate myself or the
party to which I belong, or lower the dis
tinguished gentleman or his party in the
estimation of fair-minded, unprejudiced
people. But independent of these reasons,
as a Kansan, my respect for the good nave
of our State if nothing else suggests that I
should not by the use of such vile epithets
furnish to the ignorant and vicious evidence
that schools and churches have not accom
plished all that we have claimed for them,
[Applause.] Even our good Governor
elect, to whom the people have a right to
look as the embodiment of all the qualities
of a gentle, brave, liberal, grand, noble,
dignified statesman-like, broad-guaged
manhood, and who above all others is ex
pected to refrain from outward exhibitions
of personal spite and bitterness, in a mo
ment of involuntary retching to relieve his
stomach of an unusual amount of political
bile that seems to have accumulated during
the late campaign recently through the
columns of his newspaper, the Atchison
Champion, gave vent to his pent up wrath
as follows:
“The Legislature, a few years ago, organ
ized a county named Bt. John. One of the
first acts of the incoming Legislature should
be to wipe that blot from the map of the
State. No county in Kansas should be dis
graced with the nano of this shameless
apostate and demagogue.”
Then our good Brother Griffin, through
the columns of his Manhattan Nationalist,
chimes ia by saying:
“The same bill should change the name of
•Davis County. Let the names of the two
traitors be linked. Who will say that Davis
is not the better man of the two?”
Now for the immediate relief of Mr. Griffin,
who is usually a standard authority on
matters of history, allow us to suggest
that Davis County/Kansas, was not named
in honor of the late President of the South
ern Confederacy, so the people will be
saved the expense of one dollar and forty
cents per minute (the estimated cost of run
ning the Legislature) that otherwise would
be incurred in pouring oil upon the gentle
man’s troubled waters. [Laughter.] Wffiile
I greatly appreciate the honor conferred
upon me by the Legislature of 1881, in pro
viding that one of the Western counties
should bear my name, I did not ask to be
thus distinguished; and now-, if in the
judgment of our Governor-elect, the wel
fare of his party, the honor of the State,
the duty of the Legislature soon to convene,
or his own peace aud happiness requires
that the name of that county cease to be
St. John, as a loyal citizen I shail inter
pose no objection, but only ask leave
to suggest that the county be called Mar
tin, and we solemnly promise now, that
when the Prohibitionists have the power,
which will be at no very distant day in the
future, we will elect a Governor, who, not
worrying about the little things of life, will
give liis attention to the more important
matter of blotting out the saloons in Atchi
son and several other rebellious cities, in
stead of fretting about the name of the
county of “Martin.” [Applause.]
In conclusion, my fellow-citizens, allow
me to impress upon you the fact that the
political party that lias only personal abuse
to hurl at those who differ with it, is not
long for this world. Therefore I beseech
you to not follow the bad example of our
opponents, but always bear in mind the
fact that we live in a free country, where
every citizen has a perfect right to work
with and vote for whatsoever political party
he may choose, and the party or individual
who by any system of persecution, vilifi
cation or act of intimidation directly or
indirectly interferes with the free exercise
of this right, simply strikes at the very
foundations upon which Republican
government is based, and at the very
heart of liberty. [Applause.] Let us
keep prominently before the people
the fact that there are to-day
in this country nearly 200,('40 legalized
saloons with which the Government is in
partnership to the extent of the revenue
drawn from them. That this accursed
business costs our people near one thousand
million dollars annually, which being spent
o er the counters of these soul-destroying
d_-ns, is worse than thrown away. That
this business sends to drunkards’ graves
near 100,000 victims yearly; that it de
stroys homes and manhood, corrupts our
Government, makes moral cowards of oth
erwise good citizens; it stuffs ballot boxes,
tramples the will of the people under foot,
scoffs at virtue and revels in vice: and all
this the result of an utter failure on
the part of our Government to do its
duty to an' outraged people, who have in
vain waited patiently for years with the
hope that relief would come, but instead of
relief we find that this great curse is in
creasing at a wonderful rate; and neither
of the old political parties daring to strike
a blow in defense of our homes against the
destroying influence of this mighty evil,
this new party steps to the front and with
its sling loaded with pebbles of God s holy
truth, shall strike unto death this giant,
rum. [Great applause.]
Moving a* Usual.
Chicago, January 13.—Trains on the
Chicago A Western Indiana Belt Railroad
are moving as usual to-day, the places of
the striking engiuiers having been supplied.