This party lias as a profewxi ruasou for its existence, tüc elevaüon of temperanee men to office, that they niay make and enforce temperance lavvs. Lcaving out the iiarrow dea of prohibitlou entertained by the majority, we will Uke it on the broad platform of striving to make thc country better by temperance legislation. Let ns sec liow they do tlii. They realizo these things: 1. Asa party by theinselvei they are in a small mhiorlty. 2. Their constitueiicy is drawn almost wholly frora the party In the majority, and while jt is small, u places it cin defeat that majority. Xow, according to their principies where tlie ruling party failsto nomínate good men, they may have the right to put up betterones. On the other hand, whcr temperauce men are put up who can be elected by theii' help or defeated by their oppositioii, a due regard for .their principies ought to induce thein to follow out their consistency and elect the men. This case is espnclally plain when we consider that by not doing so, they not only have no hope of electing their man, but they even know that their coursu will put antitemperance men hito power. At the last election it was not a question of party politics of state or nation, but simplyasto what men should control our city and county affairs - who should directly make and enforce the laws nearest aflecting us. Take the case of alderm:m in the iirst ward, forinstauci!. As good a temperance man as there is in the city was put up by the Republican party, while the Democrats put up a man kuown to be opposed to ternperance principies. The Union party stood between, with the power to elect or deteat either man. Which did they elect and which did they defeat? To their disgrace they eleoted the auti-temperance man and defeatcd the tcmpennce one. They talk one way and work another. Soine men who would do that would be called liypocrites. The Ooükier is a Repubücan tempeiance paper. It would like to see prohibition. If t could be enforced in Michigan we would heartily favor it. Bat these things have come ia our experience. Two years ajo last summer the editor was iu Maine, the great prohibitiou State. We saw tree whiskey and wine sold and swallowed. We saw dranken men even in Portland - Neal Dow's home, where he says there is no drinking. Wine waa on the hotel tables. Oar observation showed thaf. prohibitiou was a failure in Maine. and that whisky was free. Why, during that two weeks' travelliug in the State where the laws prohibit the sale of whisky we were invited to drink more times than we were in a recent three weeks' trip in the South. (By way of parenthesis it may be added for the benefit of those of our readers unncquainted with our habits that it was just as safe for the sontherners to ask us as for the Maine men, for wc do not partake, thank you.) We are convinced that the extreme notions of temperance cannot prevail in this country for some time at least, and until that time comes when the popular will can maintain the euforcement of prohibitory laws, we shall advocate the next best thlng, i. e., a high taxing of the wliisky business.