tation to join the anti-prohibition "pow-wow" at Dallas, in which he urges some objections to the adoption of the constitutional amendment, to which my attention had not been directed until the chapter on State prohibition had been, as I thought, completed. Proposing as I did in the outset to discuss the subject in all its phases, I can not pass unnoticed the objections urged by this distinguished young statesman whose prominence in the eastern part of Texas is such as to give much force to the position he so boldly and confidently assumes, in the estimation especially of the people of that portion of the State, when he is so favorably known. It is first insisted that the last Legislature in the enactment of a stringent law requiring heavy bond and prescribing increased penalties for violations of the law against illegal sales, with the removal of screens, pictures, music and games of chance, went as far as the urgent necessity for the further regulation and restriction of the liquor traffic demands at the present stage of our social advanceThat the better policy is, to make haste slowly in the effort to suppress this universally recognized evil. That the adoption of the proposed constitutional amendment striking down the traffic at one decisive blow would be a radical innovation upon the present order of things that might prove disastrous in its results, particularly to some interests and to certain classes of our people, who would justly regard it as tyrannical and oppressive. The usual appeal is made to timehonored principles and the customs of our fathers as a criterion by which we should be governed in the important crisis which is now upon us. It is objected that if the amendment is carried, a man can not make his own wine from his own. grapes for his own table;" therefore it ought not to be adopted. In answer to that objection, we will admit that it would be a great hardship upon all of the wine-makers in Texas, and that they would in all their after-years weep over the loss of

ment.

66

that privilege, and, like Rachel of old, "refuse to be comforted because of their dire misfortune and bereavement; and we may admit further, that a few of them would dig up their vines and transplant them into the soil of a neighboring State where there has been no attempted interference with such privileges. I do not think the State would hereby suffer any material damage or detriment. Say she should loose every manufacturer of wine "for his own use or other purposes, the loss would hardly be perceptible if it should be felt at all. On the other hand, the benefits resulting from the law would be seen and felt in every nook and corner of the State in more ways that one-in ways that I can not undertake to point out and describe. Is the State, then, to neglect all classes of her people for no other purpose than to secure to an insignificant number of persons the small privilege of making wine for their own use out of their own grapes for their own table ?" I follow this flimsy objection no further. The second objection is, that we must not interfere with the Germans and their lager.

66

While Texas has opened her doors to immigration from all quarters of the globe, and sent out far-reaching and cordial invitations to all sober, honest, industrious and self-supporting persons to come and make for themselves happy and comfortable homes upon her broad and fertile prairies, she has never guaranteed to them exemption from any law, either organic or statutory, which her people may in their wisdom, see proper to enact, having in view the promotion of the public good." She has not guaranteed that the laws and customs of any other state or country shall be specially respected, or stand in the way of the adoption of any policy which may seem to the majority consistent with, or conducive to the welfare of the whole people. While I respect our German citizens, who are honorable and worthy of respect, as highly as any other man, I do not hesitate to suggest

to them and to all others who are unwilling to submit to the will of the majority and to our laws generally, and govern themselves accordingly, that they are at perfect liberty to go somewhere else. The people of Texas cannot afford to let such considerations as these stand in the way of their moral, social or material advancement for the sake of a class of persons who threaten to defy the law and override the majority. The will of the majority must be allowed to prevail, else we have no such thing as Democracy. "The greatest good to the greatest number," although some hardship results, is the only true criterion by which we can be governed. To save the minority we can not afford to destroy the majority. The idea that "fifty-five per cent of our people ought never to assume to make that a crime which the other forty-five per cent esteem as among their rights," is novel indeed. If fifty-five per cent of the people ought not to prevail in the enactment of any penal law, then I would like to know exactly what per cent of the people constitutes a large majority, or a quorum to do business in the name of the whole people? Suppose that in a newly settled state forty-five per cent of the people "esteem it one of their dearest rights" to carry "pistols, commit assaults, destroy property, steal hogs, or to do anything else inconsistent with the personal safety, and subversive of the dearest rights of their neighbors; according to this new fangled logic and latter-day statesmanship, nothing could be done in the premises. The absurdity is apparent.

But it is urged that the amendment ought not to go so far as to make it obligatory upon the legislature to pass laws absolutely prohibiting the traffic. That if any amendment had been submitted at all, it should leave the matter optional with the legislature to prohibit or not to prohibit, to restrict or not restrict, as may from time to time appear to be to the best interests of the people at large. We are not called upon to decide any such question. The legislature after, as I suppose, a

thorough consideration of the subject in all of its phases, decided to submit the amendment in the form in which we are authorized and required to act upon the question, and it is useless for us now to find fault with it, or attempt to remedy its apparently objectionable features. The question is, which shall we have, saloons, or no saloons? whisky, or no whisky? license, drunkenness and disorder, or prohibition, sobriety and general domestic peace and social tranquiliy?

I shall not burden my readers with what I conceive to be a fruitless and worse than useless discussion in order to answer an objection, though apparently seriously urged by a most prominent young Democrat, who has held high official position, whose name has been favorably mentioned in connection with Congressional honors, and who by some has been thought good material for the United States Senate. When such an amendment as is suggested in the open letter referred to is in good faith submitted to the consideration of the people of Texas, if I am living, I may have something to say upon its merits, and it is quite probable that I would favor it, if "the best that could be done under the circumstances."

Until then I prefer to be silent and non-commital. My impression now is, that the policy of the State will be settled by the adoption of the amendment as proposed in a manner that will entirely supersede the necessity of the submission of the optional amendment preferred by the honorable gentleman whose recently published open letter suggested to the author the propriety of making this addition to the chapter after it had gone into the hands of the printer.

SUPPLEMENT TO CHAPTER IX.

REVIEW OF THE ANTI-PROHIBITION PLATFORM.

Without extensive preliminary observations giving the reasons prompting me to supplement what has already been said on the subject of State prohibition as contemplated in the amendment, soon to be voted upon by the people of Texas, I propose to discuss seriatim every proposition set forth in the platform or declaration of principles of the anti-prohibition, or True Blue" convention held in the city of Dallas, Texas, on the 4th day of May, 1887, as unanimously adopted by that august body representing the intelligence of the opposition in the State.

66

"1. We oppose the pending prohibition amendment because it is a proposition to change our form of government from a free republic of sovereign and independent citizens to a species of paternalism hateful to our people. It will take from the citizen his most sacred and inalienable rights and add to and augment the powers of government, and is therefore undemocratic and anti-republican."

"Because it (State prohibition), is a proposition to change our form of government from a free republic of sovereign and independent citizens to a species of paternalism hateful to our people." I would like to know exactly what is meant by the expression "to change our form of government." If it is meant that a majority of any State or community have no right to change the form of their government when it ceases to protect those for whom and by whom it was established, I respectfully refer to the first article in the Declaration of Independence, the charter of American liberty and of our free institutions. The contrary doctrine is there laid down as plainly as the language of patriotism can express it. In