t o usul 10 say one woru 10 tüc 1 rohibitionists tliroughout the State. You can claim to have givcn victory to the democratie party n the last four elections If your vote in 1883 of frora 18,810 to 19,071 hnd been cast for the liepublican ticket, the wliolc of it would have been elected instead of only the head. If your 24,099 votes for the President in '84 liad not been cast as they were, James ö. Hlaine would have been President today If your 30.S07 votes in 1885 had been liepublican, Ira Davenport would now bc Governor. If your 30.437 votes !ast yenr had been given to Judgc Daniels, he would now be on the Court of Appeals bench. These facts are indisputable, and Republicana are the iirst to press them home upon the attention of voters. lïutwh thaveProhibitionistsg:iined by thls? To destroy is not to buikl up. They have four times elected Democratie caudldatcs. Is the cause of prohibition or of temperance any f urther ad vaneed becausc of this, than it was four years ago? Isn't it true, on the contrary, that tho success of any Democratie candidate, either for a State office or the Leglslature, is a hindrance to every effort made at Albany to restricl the liquor trafile ? Can any Prohibitionist polnt to a single law or other beneficent action that has resulted from the course of his party durini; these years? Ifnot, wiiy continue a oolicy of seuselesa obstruction, anda course entirely f ruitles8 at that, except for evil? Fortunately for the good of society, the prospects are that hlstory will not ñient itself this year. The Kepublicans are taking an unusu.il interest in this election, and the Democrats are greatlv weakened by the secesslons to the George movement. The same Democrats who have complacently accepted victory at the hands of the Prohibitionists for four years back thlnk it highly immoral for the Republicans to be enjoying such a hearty laugh over the Labor movement. And why not? The Kepublican party honestly believes the success of the Democrats would be prejudicial to the prosperity and progress of the State. Why shouldn't it rejoice to see them dividedr But the question of principie for the Prohibitionists is the same as if their vote was likely to be allpowerful. And the progress of events has placed them in a very embarrassing position. Up to tliia time they have sought to justify thelr course by claiming that they would be able by successive defeats to farce the Uepublican party to take a stand for prohibition. Meantiine the evils of the liquor traille would grow the worse. But the so-called Personal Liberty party has has changed all that. The saloon-keepers haye grown tired of standing still. They are tlred of havlng the evils of the liquor trafBo "growing worse." They have formed a new political party, with a large corruptlon fund, to open tlie saloons on Sunday. This revolutionizes the whole situation. It will need now the mitad efforts of all citizens who want a peaceful Sunday to reslst this aggressive move of the saloon army, because it is well known that the Personal Liberty party and the Democracy are worklng hand In hand. Are the Prohibitionist In favor of a drunken Sunday or not? They must make up their mlnds, and that promptly. Up to this time their action has been negative; now it must be atlirmativc in one direction or another. Every vote cast for the Prohibition State tu-,ket will encourage the men who want to open the saloon on Sunday. Every vote cast for a Prohibition candidate for the Legislatura is a vote to elect a Democrat who will favor a law opening the saloon on Sunday. Every vote for any Repnblloan candidate is a vote for a peaceful sober Sunday. The Prohibition party is mainly made up religious people. Aru they going to use their votes and their iulluence to forcé a drunken Sunday upon the people of this State?