Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.