Ought Prohibition To Be Made A Political Question? If So, With What Limitations?

Krom the Homlletlc Review. (Conclmledfrom latí week ) The existing public sentiment, whetlier riüht or wrong, wlll, in ilii country, be practically the law on this subject; and no law, In advance of It or against it, ca be effective as n corrective or reforming remedy. No political party can cr into power, or, if In power, Ion"; stay there, against public sentiment. The niany, iu the matter of iniikiiig or iinmakmg law, will have their own way. whether the few like it or not. The bitter may and sliould do what they can eau to change the thoughts of the many, if believing them to be wrong; but they cannot escublish prohibition, and no party can estabhsU it, agaiust the judgnient of the tuany. Bometblitg may be learned on this subject fiom the strategy of what is cal led the rum power. Tbat power never gets up a third party, never has a separate and independent ticket aa the rum ticket. What it iloes is to ally itself witli one of the existing parties, and, by voting willi it, to strengthen that party, and thereby control ita action, so as to prevent the legislation it does not desire, and secure that which it does desire. This ia good stiategy in pursuit of a bad end and I mu of opinión tbat the friends of restictivi- legislation can do no better tlian u Imítate this strategy in the pursuit of Igood end. The fnct that the children pf ihis world ure somethnes wiser than thf ehildren of light is no credit to the I itter, and is the reason why the former pften Micceed when the latter fall. It iswell to rememherthit prohibitionisls, by orgauizing a thirtl party, at once tlissolved all their relations to the other tw parties, except as an opposing and flllturblug element, and that they may in tins way do positive dainage to the real [nteresls of the temperunce cause. They muy get votes from one of these partió, the one most favorable to their cause, and whicli they would otherwise have lupporled, and in this way give Tletory Cutne other party, the one least f avorable lo theii cause and most in illiance witli the liquor interest, and In this sense the rum party. This surely is not a victoiy for prohibition, bnt nither defeat. The party most likely to coöiierate witli them, it supported by them, is defeated; and the party least likely to act with them, and supported by the liquor interest, is .,,,,1 . --j ic vAjiibiivau Unit iuccess. Tbta is tu üuleat their cause, and iu part by their owu hands, and nothing else. It is well-known that the democratie party, in the recent election, calculated upon the prohibition votes to be drawn from the republican party, as oue round for the hope of success. Was this party in favor of prohibition? Not at all. It simply wanted to use prohibítionists for its own political purposes, lts hostility to their theory is without any disguise. l'rohibition, so far as it has won any victories, lias done so, not through tlie orgauizaliou of the third party, but by cooperation with an existiug party. This certainly was the fact in Maine. The problbition ainendment in Iowa&ucceeded as a repulican measure, and the prohibitiou laws of that state wereenacted by arepubliean legislature. The same faetmeets us when we turn to Kansas. The truth is that a distiuct and separate prohibition party has not yet won a single victory tor its own cause, and that all the victories actual i y wou have been gained by the agency and support of an existing party, with which tlie advocates of restrictive legislation had the good sense to cooperate, thus working with the party and thiough it, and not outekleof it or against it. What bas been done in this way can in the same way be done elsewhere, if at all, and much sooner and moreeasily than it can be done by the orgauization of a third party. If, moreover, this third party enlarges the area of its principies beyoud the singlo one of prohibitiou, so as to embrace questions also embraced by one or both of the two great parties of the country, then, in relatiou to these questions, there is no occasion for the existence of the party, since in respect to thein the people can just as well and even better secure all they desire without it, are not likely to attach themselves to it for this purpose. If, for example, they want to estauliuh uomaus' sutil age, or repeal the anti-Uhinese law, or maintain a protective tariff, uu v do not need a third party to attain any one or all of these ends. A prohibition party is not likely to attract voters trom eilher of the other parties by broadeniug its principies beyoud the single one whicli constilutes the ouly occasion for ils existence; and it is quite likely in ttiis way to raise new ditliculties with voters. It, on the other hand, this p.irty contines Uselt to the one principie whicli is the only reasou for its organization, and, consequently excludes all poliücal ends, then the basis of its action is plaiuly too limited to give any hope of ultímate -uceess. He wno supposes that a majorily of the people, already haviutf two gieat parties tlirough either of which they can inake their will etïective on all (jueaimns that concern the public welfare, will atlac'h tliemselve to a party of such nai row dimensión!' in what it proposes, givus tull prooi that he has some things yul to learn. There are other great 111lert'sts, besides Ibe one involved in prohibilion, which the people will and must consider in casting their votes. The reniilt Uien is that a distinct probibition party, if, iu the presentie of the other two pariies Qlnglog to the bréese a (lag broader than the oue principie which calis for its existeuce, or if confining itselt exclusively to that principie, really bas no prospect of getting the majority ot the voters on its side and electing lts Ciindidates, and thuá enabling itself to leali.u ils own idea. The final success of such a party through its own adherents is not ainong the probabilities of the future. The probabilites are that it will run i conipuratively short race, and at last take its place amongdefuuct political parties. The correctness of this view is conlirnied by the fact, not only that the overwhelming mass of the voters in this country have hitherto declined to attach tbemselve to such a party, but also that the party has noC by any ineans secured the votes of all who believe in the principie of prohibiton, or of that body ot voters who do uot believe in this principie, and do believe in the wisdom and utility of the license system. The elections in this country show this fact, and, in showing it, show the practical jiul;;ment of the people. Prohibitionists may scout and donounce the popular judgmeut as indioated by the ballot-box; but this will not affect tbat judginent, or alter the verdict renüered thereby, or -li:i nre a inniority into a majority Every voter lias the riglit to vote as ha tliinks best. The way lo which tbe majority of the peoplc vote tells ihe story M to what tbey thinU; and f we te-t political prohibition by this standard, the prospect of its linal sueocss is very reniote. ïlie principie vnay succeed; but I do nut believe tliat it will suceeed by a separate party morement. The difüculücs are not removed or lessened, but ratfaer Increased, wlien it is proposed to make a prohibition party National in the scope of its action. One of the thiugs to be done by such ¦ party, In order to lealize its own idea, is, once ii every four years, to nomínate candldates for president and vice-president respeelively, and also to nomínate presidential electora vvho, if choaen by the people, will vote for these eandidates. The chance of succes?, by settinjr op this electoral nviehiuery, in tus presence of the two great parlies oí tlic country, amounts simply to nothlng at all ; and if BUch a party coiikl elect its candidato for president and cc-presideut, neitber of these oflicers eould cstablish prohibiÜOB over a binóle ioot of the territory of the Uniteü staics. Anotlier tbing to be doue by a natlooal prohibition party Is, once iu every two years, to nomínate and elrcl, from the sc-veral states, eandidates for membershi, in the house of representativos, and to do so to an extent tliat will give il a niajority in tliis house. The same party rnnst be numerically strong enougtl in the states to control the action of the majority of the stat? leglriaturM, and tlms secure a mnjortty In the senate of the United States. In a word, it must, ty the election of its candidate, either directly or indireetly, obtain control of both houses of eongress. A condition of public sentiment, in the several states, readeringaU this possible, would entirelv tnparaede the neeessity for the party, so tar as these states are concerned, since the end could and would be gained by slate action; and if such a condition did not exist, then the end eould not be galned by such a party. The tug of war on this subject la to supply the necessary public sentiment; and this is not to be done, on a scale a e uate to the result, by the organlzatíon ot a national prohibitionjp.irty. Such a party may by its action defeat one party and give victorv to another; but this wiil convert neither to the adoption of its principies, so long as such adoption will cost more in votes than it will Kain. If, moreover, we suppose this party to become strong enoiigh to control both uuuoca 'fi "tii. , ii' .. „u tuni i,., ...... tronted with the tact that congress has no power to eastablish prohibition wlthln the territorial domain of the states. The utmost that congress can do is to Iegislate on this subject in the District of Columbia, in the territories of the United States, and in places used f'or forts, majr;iy.nes, arsenals, dock-yardt, and other ueedful buildings belonglng to the general government, and to regúlate foreign and interstate contuerce, and commerce with the Lidian tribes, including commerce in inloxicating liquors. Uongress, as the Constitution now is, has no power to prohibit tbe manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors in the several states, any more than it has to prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors In the several states, any more than it has to prohibit the manutacture and sale of bread in the states. It may, for the purpose ut raising a revenue, impose a tax on the liquor business; but this, upon the very face of the case would not be prohibition. To i ra pose a tax so heavy as to matte it absolute probibitory would be to defeat th - nrtltnUiwJ cml of the tax, and without any warrant iu the Constitution, to suppress a business allowed by state authority. Far tbe greater part of the cvll to be removed exists In the states, and henee beyond the legislative power of cougress. And if the public sentiment in the states were such as to secure a majority of the members of botli houses of congt'ess favorable to prohibition, then, as already reraarked, this sentiment would be abundantly able to establish prohibition In the states by state action, without any legislation on the part of congress, even t we suppose it true, as it is not, that conKress lias power to enact a prohibitory law to opérate in these states. The only way in which congress can bo put in possession of such a power is by an ainendment to the Constitution, giving it the power. If political prohibltionists propose to secure this result, then they raust elect a congress that will by a twothirds majority submit such an amendment to the legislatures of the several states, and must also gain such control over the state legislatures that threetourths of them will ratify the aiuendment; or, if they do not adopt this methoil, tlien they must get tWO-thlrdl t the legislatures of the several states to ask congress to cali a federal convention to propose the amendment, and then get secure its ratification by conventions in three-fouitlis ot the states. Is there any prospect that an effrt to gain the result in eltber of these ways would be surcegsful? Absolutely none whattver. If the people of the several states were universally in (avor of prohibition they could and would establish it by state authority in tliese states. and would not ¦eek to do it by federal authority. To establish it by tlie latter autlioilty would be to change the ehararter of the general rovernineiit, and also that ot the state goveinin-'nts, aa mnob so as if oongren were authonzed to pass laws in respect to all crimes coinmitted in these states, or in respect to any other subject that is now prOMlif regarded as a matter to be regulateu by state authority. Wbether IntuXiOiitlng liiiuors shall be mauufac tured and sold iu a given state is a question for that state to determine; and it canuot be determiiH'd by COiifTM without trorkbig a fundamental onange in our system of froverninent. He wtio tliinks that the requUlte majority can ¦ver be persuadid to sanrüon such a cliane in the "supreme law of the land," bas passed beyond the reach of reason; and iheattempt to reason with liim would be labor lost. These considerations show that the difticulties of the pniblcin are levened or simplitied, but ratlicr Increated, when it is proposed to créate and perpetúate a prohibition party tliat shall bo national in the scope of its actioa. The effort, however persistently made, can result in aotulng iut Itaown fallure. Prohlbltton, as a third party ïnovenient, sbould not, at the very utmost, pass bevond the sphere ot stale politics; and, even here, the chances of its success are reduced to a minimam quantity. The cotnlitions upon which it can sueeeed entirely dispense with its necessity as the means of that success. These oondltlona beitig given, the inovement is not needed; and if iiot given, it is a failiirc. I have in this argument, purposcly omittcd to consider the question, whether prohibition can, in this country, be put into pnictice to sucli an extent tlmt, liy reinovuiK the facility for the use of intoxicfttinjj drinkx, it would wliolly or malnly remove the evils thorefrom. My object bas been to show that, f this quectlon bennswen-d in the::ffirmative, the orgsntzation of a third pany to atiain the end, whether u naticiiial or state politics, is not a wise mode of acttoD, WbctiiiT sik-Ii a party sball be orjiuuized and supported or not is not at all a question ol prifuipló, but litnply one of the ways and uieans. I have never acted with any sueh party, and I do not ezpect to do so. I do not believe in its practical wisdom with reference to the end sou:ht. The political prolnbitionists, who form but a Miiall fiaction of the real fríends of tetnperance in this country, have not, in my Judgment, advanced tlieir cause at all by their course al the recent election. They have imlirectly lielped the democratie party into power, and, in so doinjr, tliey liave done the very thiug which the liquor interest desired to have done. The triuraph of this party is not, in the llght of its well-known antecedents, to be regarded as a victory for proliibition. Nor is the defeat of the republican party, in party by the prohibidonists, to be reckoneii as such a victory. This party is nt likely to be converted to prohibi'tion by any such process, especially when tlie conversión would be sure to secure its defeat. The political problbitlonUta are to-day a very small minoritv of the whole peoplc In the United States, and a small minoniy of the whole people in each of Btates; and I do not bellve that their polier of organlztng a third party' will ever niake thein inytbjng else. The reasons for this opinión I have stated la the preceding argument.