The initiative and referendum is good enough for the Prohibition Party when applied to “all matters of legislation not distinctively moral;” but when morals are involved, “the law of God” only is binding, and the initiative and referendum is repudiated. Their interpretation of the demands of “the law of God”—not actually the law itself—would become the supreme law of the land, and all the power of the government, in their hands, would be set to enforcing it. Need it be said that this would be repeating the history of the Dark Ages and Medieval times in the most accurate detail!
Mr. Eugene W. Chafin, Prohibition candidate for president, in 1912, said:
“I don’t want any person who claims to be a party Prohibitionist—a middle-of-the-road Prohibitionist—ever to sign another petition, or ask Congress or any legislature anywhere under the American flag to pass any prohibitive laws on the liquor question. We don’t want any laws of any kind whatever passed. All we want is to be elected to power.... Elect us to power, and we will repeal a few laws and do the rest by interpretation of the constitution and administration of the government.”
Mr. Ferdinand Cowle Inglehart, N. Y., Supt., of the Anti-Saloon League, in the Review of Reviews, February, 1915, page 216, said:
“The pastors and members of the churches turned the State (Oregon) into an organized political camp.”
This was indeed a frank confession upon the part of Mr. Inglehart. He might have truthfully added that it was the Anti-Saloon League which was the moving spirit that invaded the churches and spurred on the “pastors and members of the churches” to turn the sovereign State of Oregon into “an organized political camp.” A political camp is, beyond question, organized for political ends. Prohibition in Oregon, as elsewhere, was the “Cheshire cheese,” and political power the goal of its ambition. And now in Oregon, as elsewhere, we shall hear the cry: “Now that we have Prohibition, we must fill the public offices with ‘good men’ to enforce the law: ‘turn the rascals out’ and put good men in office”; and, of course, “good men” must be Prohibitionists always. None others need apply. Oh, it is a fine scheme; but unfortunately, it takes no cognizance of the minority—those who are quite equal in American citizenship, and who lose none of their civil rights by virtue of their being the minority.
Political Activities at Washington
Mr. L. Ames Brown, in “Prohibition and Politics,” published in the North American Review of December, 1915, points to some of the features of the Anti-Saloon League programme, in the nationalization of prohibition—a very interesting and valuable contribution upon the subject. Very accurately—and apparently without any prejudices—Mr. Brown shows the workings of the Prohibitionists in the political.
He calls attention to the Prohibition rider in the District of Columbia Appropriation Bill, “an amendment to the District Bill to foist prohibition upon the people of the District without a referendum,” and continuing, says:
“The Prohibitionists, with one or two exceptions, refused to listen to suggestions that the legislation be submitted to a vote of the District of Columbia, thus disregarding the principle of self-government which they had agitated so vigorously in local option campaigns.”