Newspaper Page Text
PAGE SIXTEEN
‘Bishop Candler and Mr. Watson.
The readers of The Jeffersonian
will remember that allusion was made
some weeks ago to the inconsistency
of those prohibitionists who opposed
the Hon. Seaborn Wright when that
gentleman ran for governor in 1896
on the anti-barroom platform. Dr.
Warren Candler was mentioned as
one of these good prohibitionists who
flew the coop that year.
The rest of the story tells itself
in the following articles which ap
peared from day to day in the At-
Constitution.
His Position Misstated, Says Bishop
Candler —Methodist Leader Says
Watson’s Weekly Put Him in
False Light in Regard to State
Prohibition.
Bishop Warren A. Candler, of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
states that he has been done an in
justice, and that his position on state
prohibition has been misrepresented
by a paragraph published in a recent
issue of Watson’s Weekly Jefferson
ian Magazine. The article alleges
that in the campaign of 18896 Bishop
Candler opposed state prohibition in
favor of local option.
The statement to which the bishop
takes exception is as follows:
“In that memorable campaign of
1896, our democratic brethren could
not get their consent to vote with us
against the barrooms. If my memory
is not playing me a mean and low
down trick, Bishop Candler was one
of the democratic brethren who
fought manfully against us in our
effort to rid the state of barrooms.
“The great Methodist leader
doubted the genuineness of any re
form which did not come through
the democratic party, and, conse
quently, the open saloon received the
benefit of his powerful influence in
that campaign.”
Bishop Candler Talks.
“I know nothing of what sort of
mean and low-down tricks Mr. Wat
son or Mr. Watson’s memory, may
be capable,” said the bishop, “but
my position in that campaign is not
a matter of Mr. Watson’s memory,
or anybody else’s memory. It is a
matter of recoid. I opposed the
identifying of the cause of prohibi
tion with the issues and fortunes of
any party or person, democrat, or
populist, or republican. I said so in
the interview. When, without my
knowledge or consent, it was given
out that I would stump the state for
the populist candidates for governor
and state house officers. When an
effort was made to pervert that inter
view I met it the day it appeared
with a corretcion. I was engaged in
revival services at Toccoa in August,
1896, and returned to my home in
Oxford by private conveyance,
preaching at various points on the
wav in other revival services. When
I reached Harmony Grove on Au
gist 31, I saw a copy of The Atlanta
Constitution of that date, in which
a correspondent sought to make it
appear that I was for local option
as against state prohibition. 1 im«
mediately sat down and sent this
card to The Constitution, which
states briefly and clearly my posi
tion then and now. Here it is. Re
print it just as it appeared without
M change of a letter or a comma.”
WATSON’S WEEKLY TEFFERSONIAN.
The bishop’s card, as it appeared,
is as follows:
A Card From Dr. Candler.
“Editor Constitution: In your is
sue of August 31, under the caption
of ‘ Why Disturb Local Option /' a
correspondent draws an unwan anted
inference from a recent utterance of
mine, lie seems to think, because 1
am in favor of local option 1 am op
posed to state prohibition. This is
a mistake. 1 favor every form of
prohibition we can get wnich closes
the saloon, whether it be by local
option, a statute for the whole state,
or a constitutional amendment. The
anti-barroom bill meets my approval,
and has been earnestly advocated by
me. What 1 deprecate and oppose
is the entanglement of our cause with
the issues and fortunes of any po
litical party whatsoever. ft is
stronger than any party, because it
has friends in all parties, it has
nothing to gain by an alliance with
any party, and everything to lose,
it must inevitably lose in a partisan
contest the active suppoit of the
churches and the preachers, for they
are excluded from party politics by
the very charier of the church as it
is set forth in the New Testament.
I do sorely regret any partisan agi
tation of this great moral issue. It
means the injury of piohibition in
Georgia.
(Signed) “W. A. CANDLER,
“Harmony Grove, Ga., August 31,
1896.”
Still His Platform.
“Now,” said the bishop, “by ev
ery word in that card I stand’today,
and the result of the campaign of
1896 was just as I predicted it would
be. Prohibition was injured by the
effort to ally with it a political party,
and it would have been injured more
if ceitain of us who had no politi
cal ambitions to serve and no party
interests to promote had not sounded
a note of warning. The present hope
ful state of the cause of prohibition
in Georgia would have come sooner
but for that unfortunate campaign.
“I belong to no political party,
and as a minister of the Gospel 1
feel that I have a ministry to men
of all parlies which forbids my be
coming a partisan. I would not have
the temperance cause, which is
stronger than any party, weakened
by identification with any. I love
the cause of prohibition, but there is
no political party in the United States
to which I am ready to pledge alle
giance.
“I may add that I have been a
total abstainer all my life, and have
made as many speeches for prohi
bition as any man of my age in Geor
gia. More than twenty years ag->
I helped to carry Mr. Watson’s
county of McDuffie for prohibition.
I wrote articles in advocacy of the
cause in the county paper published
in Thomson at that time by Jordan
White. I was present and spoke at
many, if not most, of the public
meetings held by the prohibitionists
in the county. I do not know how
Mr. Watson voted in that election,
but I do not remember to have seen
him in any of the meetings which I
attended, although one meeting was
held in connection with a big barbe
cue in a pine gvove in the suburbs of
Thomson.
“Oh, pshaw!” continued the bishop
wirh a smile, “I was a prohibition
ist when some of the politicians were
of such an uncertain state of moist
ure that one could not say whether
they were * wet’ or ‘dry,’ and when
some others were ‘wet’ inside and
outside. And I am likely to be
straight on the prohibition question
when some of them have become
‘wet’ again. 1 want no office and
have no party ends to serve, so I
am able to, serve prohibition with a
singleness of purpose to which wob
bling candidates and wriggling par
tisans are strangers.”
Toni Watson Replies to Bishop
Candler.
Editor Constitution: —•
Two life-long prohibitionists like
Bishop Candler and myself must not
quarrel at the end of the long cam
paign, when victory is in sight.
The reverend doctor, whose good
ness and greatness command my re
spect, has been a trifle hasty. Had
he more carefully read what was said
in my weekly paper, and then com
pared it closely to his < wn card or
1896, he would have realized that his
resurrection of his own card proved
that my memory' had not played me
“a mean, low-down trick” when it
reminded me that in the campaign
of 1896 Dr. Candler could not see
his way to support the prohibition
candidate for governor
Instead of showing that my state
ment was incorrect. Dr. Candler has
himself demonstrated its accuracy.
The Jeffersonian did not state that
the bishop was not a prohibitionist
in 1896. Oh, no —that was not the
point, at all! The statement made
was that the bishop, being a prohi
bitionist. could not see his wav to
support the prohibition candidate for
governor.
Does the bishop refute this? Not
at all. He admits and defends. Into
the merits of his defense it is unneces
sary for me to enter; his admission
is the thing essential.
Mon. Seaborn Wright, who was
never a populist, was nominated for
governor to make a fight for ti e
anti-barroom bill. Hon. Walter B.
Hill and other prominent prohibition
democrats rallied to the standard.
Dr. Candler says that it was an
nounced that he, too, was going to
support Wright and his anti-barroom
platform. To show to the people
that the announcement was unfound
ed, he wrote and published a card
of denial.
Wdl, what’s left to debate?
I had net impugned the bishop’s
motives, or assailed his reasons. I
had merely stated his position. The
zeproduction of his card establishes
the fact that I had stated it cor
rectly. The Jeffersonian said that
Bishop Candler was one of those good
and honest prohibitionists who could
not see his way, in 1896 to support
Seab. Wright and the anti-barroom
bill.
If Bishop Candler has not pioved
that this is true, then I’m a wooly
headed nigger, and don’t know the
difference between an affidavit and
a monkey-wrench.
As to my prohibition record, it is
long and straight. True, I did not
turn out to hear Dr. Candler’s
speeches in McDuffie county. This
proves that I have not always made
the most of all opportunities to im-
prove my mind, and I regret the miss
ing of those speeches just as I regret
the loss of other good things which
were placed within reach. Neverthe
less, I assure the bishop that I was
with him in spirit, if rot in person;
and that, at the grand round-up on
election day, there I was, among the
sheep —and not among the goats.
. The bishop thinks that the prohibi
tion campaign of 1896 injured the
cause. I think so, too. My opinion is
that the injury was the consequence
of the attitude of just such prohibi
tionists as himself, who, being good,
honest prohibitionists, could not see
their way to voting the prohibition
ticket. To a considerable extent, peo
ple lost confidence in the professed
prohibitionists, when they allowed the
name populist to drive them to vote
against the anti-barroom bill.
But I mustn’t tease the bishop
about this any more. I see that he
is a little bit nettled, and it would
be in bad taste to persist. As the
preacher says, “I will not dwell.”
Thank God those bygone years of
strife and bitterness, of misunder
standings and recriminations, are be
hind us forever. We cannot afford
to fan smouldering brands into burn
ing again. We must forgive and for
get. We must unite for all that is
good, and march side by side against
all that is bad. In building for the
future of our country, for our girls
and our boys, we must be inspired,
not as populists and democrats and
republicans, but as patriots and fath
ers.
That Bishop Candler is a good and
great man, I gladly acknowledge. As
a Georgian, I am proud of him. That
he erred in judgment in 1896, I be
lieved then and believe now. But
to question his honesty, never once
entered iny thoughts.
With his help then we might have
knocked out the barrooms then; but
it is too late to discuss that. The
bishop’s heart and hand are now giv
en to the prohibition measure, of
which that same Seaborn Wright of
1896 is the most brilliant champion.
Seab and I missed you in 1896,
bishop—ah, how we missed you!
But it’s all right, at last; and all
three of us now stand together. You
wouldn’t follow me in 1896, bishop
—so lam now following you.
My way of looking at such things
is this: If you have to vote in or
der to get what you want, it is al
ways sensible to vote for what you
want.
I wanted prohibition in 1896, and
voted for it. The bishop wanted pro
hibition in 1896—but I said I
wouldn’t tease him any more.
And I won’t.
THOMAS E. WATSON.
Thomson, Ga., July 21, 1907.
After this card was published,
Bishop Candler answered it; and
then Mr. Watson rejoined. The two
last letters of the little controversy
make such pleasant summer reading
that the Jeffersonian will publish
these, also, next week.
WHO SENT THIS CHECK?
Some agent sent us, July 11, an
unsigned check on the bank in Nash
ville, Ga.
The amount is $6.
Will the sender please send dupli
cate check duly signed?
Unfortunately we have been una
ble to trace the sender.