Our Democratic opponents, however, challenge the right of the Republican party to a renewal of public confidence. And on what grounds? Read their platform, and you will see that the first and principal plank is a general and very bitter denunciation of “all sumptuary laws, State or National,” and an emphatic demand for a return to the license system. They are opposed, the platform declares, “to the principle of constitutional prohibition.” They regard it as an invasion of “the individual liberty and manhood of the citizen.” And they favor, “instead of constitutional or statutory prohibition, a well-regulated and just license system.” The Republican platform, on the other hand, declares that “the people of Kansas have adopted prohibition as the settled policy of the State, and have declared that the saloon, with its corrupt and demoralizing influences, must go.” The Republicans are, therefore, the platform declares, “in favor of carrying out this verdict of the people, by enacting laws to enforce it, and by faithfully executing those laws, so that the sale of intoxicating liquors, except for the purposes specified in the Constitution, may be made impossible.” On this question, as you will see, the two parties radically disagree. The Republicans take their stand fairly on the Constitution of the State—on the action of the sovereign people of the State, who by their votes have placed the liquor traffic and the saloon under the ban of their organic law. The Democrats denounce the Constitution and laws of the State, and favor a return to the license system. Prohibition, it should be remembered, was not originally a party or partisan policy. Neither the Republican nor the Democratic party is responsible for the fact that the prohibition amendment to the Constitution was adopted. That was the act of the sovereign people of Kansas, acting in their individual capacity, without partisan or party indorsement or direction. HISTORIC PARALLELS.