Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.