Newspaper Page Text
PAGE TWELVE
Parting Word to Watson By Bishop Candler
Editor Constitution: With refer
ence to Mr. Thomas E. Watson’s
card in your issue of July 22, I beg
to say a few things.
1. lam glad to see he is in such
an amiable frame of mind; it well be
comes him, and I hope he may ac
quire the habit of amiability. But
he should also cultivate the habit of
accuracy of statement. In his
“Weekly Jeffersonian” he said of
me “the open saloon received the
benefit of his powerful influence in
that campaign” (the campaign of
1896). My card first printed in the
summer of 1896, and reprinted in
your issue of July 21, shows that the
open saloon received no benefit of my
influence, but on the contrary, that
I publicly and emphatically declared
myself in favor of local option, state
prohibition, a constitutional amend
ment or any other method which
would effectually close the saloons.
Mr. Watson knows that neither in
1896, nor at any other time, did the
open saloon ever receive the benefit
of my influence. If he desired to be
accurate he should have said that
his party could not secure the benefit
of my influence, and that he and his
party associates could not use me for
their partisan ends. That is the
point of his grievance against me.
2. I am delighted to be assured
by Mr. Watson that he voted the
“dry” ticket when his own county
McDuffie was carried for prohibition
some twenty years ago. Although 1
was very actively and continuously
engaged in that campaign,’ from its
beginning to its end, I never knew
before how Mr. Watson voted. In
those days prohibition was not as
popular as it is now, and when some
of us. without political hopes or
fears to move us, were fighting for
it on the naked issue of its right
eousness, so far as I now remember
Mr. Watson did not help us with one
speech in public nor one line in the
press. Like Brer Fox, “he lay low
and kept on saying nothing.” But
I am glad to have his assurance now
that he voted “dry,” and I believe
he did. I feel a little like making a
prayer for him like one I heard a
pious old negro make in a revival
meeting for his fickle young master.
For months before the meeting his
“Marse John” was very lukewarm,
not to say badly backslidden, but in
the revival he warmed up to the
shouting point. The old negro watch
ed from a rear seat, in the church
the exultant movements of the re
turning prodigal until at last, unable
to restrain himself, he arose anti went
forward, exclaiming as he grasped
the shouter’s hand, “God bless you,
Marse John! I is so glad de good
Lord dene gib you dis big blessin.
I do shore hope it will last you clean
past next Christmas!” I do hope
Mr. Watson may continue in the grace
of temperance, and then that he may
cultivate also all the Christian graces,
such as kindness to the poor, benevo
lence, gentleness, meekness, etc. He
is a man of marked gifts and might
be very useful if he would undertake
to serve faithfully and unselfishly his
generation according to the will of
God.
As official duties force me to start
tomorrow on a long journey to the
WATSON'S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
west, let me say while I am writing
a parting word to the prohibitionists
in the legislature. It is this: Watch,
as the issue comes to the close, the
tricks of the anti-prohibitionists.
They will, when it is evident that they
cannot prevent the passage of the
bill, seek to mar and maim it. Do
not allow them to amend it so as to
make it too lax to be of any value.
On the other hand, do not allow them
to tack on to it any extreme fea
tures that will render it impractica
ble and unpopular when the law is
put in operation. If they are as skill
ful as they generally are, they will
try both these tricks, when they see
all attempts to defeat the bill out
right are vain. Give Georgia a good,
safe and sane prohibition law, de
formed neither by compromise nor
fanaticism, but sober and sound in
its own provisions and well adapted
to make all the people who live un
der it sober, healthy, prosperous and
pious. God bless dear old Georgia
and all her people!
W. A. CANDLER.
Atlanta, Ga., July 22, 1907.
P. S. —Since the foregoing was
written I have received a letter
from a friend well acquainted
with the history of political events
in McDuffie county since I w»as
engaged in the prohibition campaign
there. From that letter I make the
following extract:
“In 1881 Mr. George P. Stovall
ran for the legislature in McDuffie
county. Mr. Stovall was a popular
gentleman and it was thought he
%ould have no opposition, but he
came out in a card announcing his
intention to procure the repeal of
tlie prohibition law of McDuffie
county if elected. This aroused the
prohibitionists and they put Dr. E. C.
Hawes in the race on an avowed pro
hibition platform. Mr. Watson did
not vote for Dr. Hawes, and in no
way lent him aid in the campaign.
So if Mr. Watson refers to the cam
paign of 1884 when he says, ‘and
at the grand round-up on election day
there I was among the sheep and not
among the goats,’ then he is in error.
I cannot say Mr. Watson voted for
Mr. Stovall, but he did not vote for
Dr. Hawes, although he was in town
that day.”
So it appears that if Mr. Watson
has not been “among the goats” he
has been just a little bit “sheep
ish” about prohibition in his own
home county. I do not quote this
to tease Mr. Watson, nor to cast a
doubt on his profession of devotion
to the prohibition cause now. If he
says he is “dry,” I shall accept his
statement —at least as long as the
present “dry spell” lasts, and until
I have good reason to believe his po
litical humidity is unquestionably es
tablished. W. A. C.
HON. THOMAS E. WATSON TO
BISHOP W. A. CANDLER.
“Editor Constitution:—
When a bishop gets a kink in his
record, it is natural that he should
worry over it. Bishops, after all,
are but human. That Dr. Candler is
sadly vexed because of my good-hu
mored reference to the mistake he
made in 1896, is apparent to every
body. His vexation is just as evi-
dent in the laborious gayety of his
card, as it was in the somewhat gruff
tone of his interview.
A prohibition Democrat was a can
didate for governor in 1896, and the
main feature of his platform was
the anti-barroom plank. Many pro
hibition Democrats in Georgia gave
their hearty support to the candidate
and the platform; Dr. Candler did
not. When the newspapers announc
ed that he, like Walter B. Hill, and
so many other prohibitionists, was
going to support the Hon. Seaborn
Wright, Dr. Candler hastened into
print to deny the charge, and to de
cry the effort to get prohibition in
that way.
Not only was the card which Bishop
Candler published a positive repu
diation of the statement that he would
support the prohibition candidate
for governor, but it was a condemna
tion of the campaign itself.
Not content with refusing his sup
port, Dr. Candler strongly expressed
his opposition.
Not satisfied with a negative, he
took a positive position, and that po
sition was antagonistic to the prohi-,
bition candidate for governor.
The bishop in the innocence of h's
heart, actually republishes the card
of 1896, in which he dealt the prohi
bition candidate and campaign such
a staggering blow. From one end
of the line to the other, Seaborn
Wright’s supporters felt the hurtful
influence of Dr. Candler’s antag
onism.
To this all will agree.
Now, when The Jeffersonian stat
ed that in the campaign of 1896,
“the open saloon got the benefit of
Dr. Candler’s influence,” the bishop
squirms.
But, if the open saloon did not get
the benefit of Dr. Candler’s influ
ence in the campaign of 1896, who
did!
The anti-saloon element was back
ing Seab Wright; the saloon element
was fighting him, and Dr. Cand’er
came out with a card dealing Seab
Wright a smashing blow; yet the
bishop is nettled when The Jeffer
sonian says that the saloons got the
benefit of influence.
If the saloons did not get it, what
went with it!
When a good, honest prohibition
ist, Bishop Candler, cannot see
his way to voting the prohibition
ticket, just because the populists in
dorse the candidacy of a prohibition
Democrat, he must not become ruf
fled when that mistake afterwards
bobs up and pesters him.
Mistakes are aggravating scamps
and they have not that respect f
bishops which well-bred errors ought
to have. One of these irreverent mis
takes will tease and fret a bishop,
just as though he were no better than
anybody else. And it sometimes hap
pens that a bishop, teas d and both
ered by one of these little kinks in
the record, becomes ineffective and
unhappy even in his selection of an
anecdote about that hard-worked
brother, “the pious old negro.”
When a lusty Caucasian bishop has
to unload his*Vrouble and embarrass
ment on the overworked “pious old
negro,” all of us recognize the signal
of distress and respect it.
*4l* —• * . t
To “rub it in” would be cruel.
Therefore, we must not press the
bishop further than to remind him
that in any campaign, where prohibi
tion is the issue, the barrooms get
the benefit of the influence of those
who repudiate the prohibition can
didate.
No matter how pure may be the
motive, nor how forcible the reasons
of those good, honest prohibitionists
who cannot see their way to voting
the prohibition ticket, in that elec
tion, the fact remains—and it is for
ever a sact —that the barrooms get
the benefit of the influence of those
prohibitionists in that election.
If the bishop and his pious old
negro can get around that clincher
they will have to “get up early in
the morning.”
And when bishops, who are algo
prohibitionists, cannot see their way
to voting the prohibition ticket, they
must expect to be smiled at when
they write such sentences as
“I do hope Mr. Watson may con-,
tinue in the grace of temperance.
He might be very useful if he would
undertake to serve faithfully and un
selfishly his generation according to
the will of God.”
-Amen. Being a somewhat older
man than Bishop Candler, I can lis
ten to his good counsel with appre
ciative urbanity. Nevertheless, J
was mighty sorry, in 1896, that a
good, honest prohibitionist, like Dr.
Candler, could not get his consent
to help me and Seab Wright and
Walter Hill fight'the barrooms.
In spite of his fatherly interest i i
me, evidenced by his card, the bish p
could not take my word for my own
record. His postscript, indeed, al
most backslides from the friendly
tone of the card itself. Somebody
from Thomson, it seems, has been
giving the bishop “inside dots.”
There is a prematurely gray-head
ed man living in Macon who could
have told Bishop Candler to bev
how he used these “inside dots”
from Thomson. Before you do anv
thing of the kind again, bishop, con
fer with Pendleton, of The Tele
graph.
The well-meaning, but woefully
misled bishop refers to the Hawes-
Stovall campaign of 1884. Why, my
dear bishop, the big fight for prohi
bition in McDuffie county was made
in 1878. Hon. H. C. Roney was* thi
prohibition candidate. That was the
first election at which I was old
enough to vote, and I voted the pro
hibition ticket.
Never have I voted any other. In
the campaign of 1896, I heartily sup
ported Dr. Hawes and voted ftfr him.
We were not only together in that
campaign, but to the day of his death
Dr. Hawes was my friend.
If Dr. Candler had consult d his
brother Methodist, the Rev. M. J.
Cofer, that veteran of the prohibi
tion war would have told him that
I was making speeches for temper
ance from the same platform with
Dr. Cofer long before I was -of agp,
and long before Warren Candler had
been heard of.
As to newspaper writing, I can
show the bishop some articles, con
troversial and otherwise—yellow with
age—reaching back to the daya when