Newspaper Page Text
lending themselves to the schemes of
any person or party.
W. A. CANDLER.
Texarkana, Tex., July 27, 1907.
TOM WATSON COMES AGAIN
ANSWERING BISHOP
CANDLER.
Editor Constitution:—
If it be safe and sane to regard
Bishop Candler’s letter as a ther
mometer, one would guess that thev
are having hot weather in Texas.
Fortunately we have had rains in
Georgia, followed by a grateful
change of temperature, consequently
I claim no credit for keeping cool--
no matter how warm the bishop may
grow.
In the interview which began our
series of love letters, Dr. Candler
opened with this sweet and Christian
remark:
“I know nothing of what mean
and low down tricks Mr. Watson
or Mr. Watson's memory may he ca
pable ”
My answer to the interview, all of
which was pitched in the same key
as the sentence quoted, ignored the
bishop’s lack of gentleness and cour
tesy, treated him with that respect
due to his sacred office and high char
act er.
Indeed, the bishop himself appear
ed to be sensible of my forbearance,
for the main part of his second pub
lication in your columns exhibited
him in the role of the benevolent,
considerate, good-humored man of
God.
Having stroked my tawny scalp
lock with paternal indulgence, the
bishop seemed to dismiss me from his
mind; and his thoughts soared off
to the Georgia legislature. Then,
having told that august body exactly
what kind of prohibition bill to enact,
he dismissed everybody in a general
benediction of ‘'God bless dear old
Georgia and all her people.”
Evidently -I was not included in
this seemingly universal prayer, for
after having duly signed the 11 am
nesty act,” the bishop added a post
script which could have no other
meaning than that he wanted to con
vict me of falsehood.
Most of the friends of the bishop
will probably agree that this post
script was unnecessary and unfortu
nate. Ir could not possibly illumi
nate his own position in 1896. It
had no tendency to prove or disprove
‘the proposition under discussion —
namely, that in yoting against the
prohibition platform in 1896, the
bishop had, in that campaign, allow
ed the epen saloon to reap the bene
fit of his influence.
, No matter how faulty my own rec ■
ord may be; no matter how numer
ous mv own sins of omission and com
mission—the blots upon my own
character or record can remove no
blot from the record of the bishop.
Therefore, the adding of his post
script could have nn possible bear
ing -upon the subject matter of the
debate which ■wa e » thi«:
Mr. Watson’s Proposition.
Was my statement in The Jeffer
sonian a falsehood ?
Dr. Candler alleged that it was;
I contended that it was not
My proposition, first and last, is
merely this: Whenever a prohibi
tionist votes against the prohibition
ist candidate in a campaign where
prohibition is the issue, the barrooms
WATSON’S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
get the benefit of the influence of
such voters in that campaign.
Dr. Candler’s discontent and
warmth seem to grow out of the fact
that I do not give his reasons for
talking and writing and voting
against the prohibition candidate in
the campaign in 1896. He does not
deny that he talked and voted against
the prohibition candidate. What he
does deny is that the open saloon
got the benefit of that campaign.
When I put the plain question,
asking who got the benefit of his
influence in that campaign, sultry
weather sets in at Texarkana, Tex.,
and at hot wave comes pouring over
Georgia.
No wonder. The question strikes
home. It transfixes the bishop. A
lance going right through his body
would not more injuriously affect his
physical equilibrium, than does this
simple question upset his mental
peace.
Vain to talfc about populist, “va
garies.” “capsules,” “follies” and
“iniquities.” Vain babble of “si
mony.” “selfish purposes,’’ and “po
litical machinations.” These are the
bishop’s reasons for voting against a
| prohibition democrat, running on a
prohibition platform. The reasons,
from his point of view, are good rea
sons. I never «aid they were nor
Had I believed that the thought they
were, I would have assailed them as
violently as he did myself I blame
no man for combating what he thinks
is wrong. On the contrary, I hon«»r
him so rit and glory in bis pluck.
But we should never lose sight of the
facts, if ,in the campaign of 1896,1
had voted against the anti-barroom
candidate because he was running
with an infamous gang, who merely
sought to prostitute the holy cause
of prohibition in the interest of base
political purposes I would never
deny the necessary conseqquences of
that vote. I would take the bull by
horus and would say: “Yes, I did
give the barrooms the benefit of my
influenc and my vote. I did it be
caus in the campaign it was better
to help the saloons than to help the
populists.” That is just what you
did, bishop, and all this splashing of
the water will not wash out the fact.
Mind you, I do not question your
motives. From the beginning, your
honesty has been conceded. What I
complain of is that you struggle vio
lently to keep from swallowing a nec
essary part of your own medicine.
Here was your prescription in
1896, bishop: “The populists, who
are a bad lot, have endorsed for gov
ernor a prohibition democrat. This
they have done for selfish purposes.
To save the state from populist va
garies, follies and iniquities I will
talk, write and vote against the pro
hibition candidate. This will throw
me with the barroom element, and
the open saloon will get the benefit
of my influence in this campaign.
But it is a choice of evils. I choose
the lesser evil of the two.”
That, bishop, is a fair summing up
of your case. No disinterested friend
of yours will say otherwise. Then,
why is it so hot in Texarkana, Tex
as? Make haste and eomo homo,
bishop; we’ve had rains in dear old
Georgia, and the cool breezes are just
fine.
See how liberal and charitable I
am disposed to be in dealing with the
matter of the bishop’s reasons and
•motives.
What friend of his could ask
more?
For the sake of the argument, I
have admitted that the pops were a
bad old gang. They were chock full
of “vagaries, follies and iniquities.”
They were ready for “simony” and
other desperate practices. Their
leaders were men without principle
or character. They were enemies to
their country —antagonistic to the
best interests of society. Such men
as Judge Hines and Colonel Peek,
and Major McGregor, and Dr. John
L. Durham and General Phillips, and
Judge Edward Anthony, and Joe
Pottle, and Mel Branch, and Bernard
Suttler, and Judge Snead, and Col
onel Joe Blance, and Dr. Raines, and
F. D. Dimberly, H. S. White, Newt
Twitty, W. W. Wilson, Captain D. B.
Wells, and John H. Traylor, and
John T. West—oh, they were a dread
ful bunch! “Out with you!”
And when these conspirators
against the public weal were joined
by such dark-minded incendiaries as
Walter B. Hill, Seaborn Wright, Dr.
W. H. Felton, William C. Sibley,
Thomas H. Timmons, Georgia D.
Stone, Sam Jones, and other sangui
nary anarchists it was, indeed, high
time for Warren Candler to cry
aloud: “Better the defeat of prohi
bition than the triumph of such a
piratical conglomeration as Jhis!”
“Out with you!”
Doesn’t Blame Him.
And I don’t blame him a bit! If
I had believed, just as he did, that
the success of the populists meant
havoc to the state and disaster to the
church, I would have talked, and
voted with the barroom element, as
a choice of evils, just as he did.
But, I never would have been bold
enough to think that I could get
away from the fact that the open
saloon reaped the benefit of my in
fluence in Texarkana, Texas, during
the month of August, before he will
ever get away from the fact above
stated.
Dr. Candler makes a side swipe
at the record of Seaborn Wright.
With that I have nothing to do. The
dispensary of Floyd county was es
tablished long after 1896. Doubtless
it appeared to be the best thing of
which the local situation would ad
mit. Whether it was or not, it
throw’s no light upon Dr. Candler’s
own vote in 1896.
Neither is it worth while to waste
time on the Gordon-Calhoun senato
rial struggle. The Farmers’ Al
liance, as an organization, took no
part in that contest. Certain alli
ance leaders undertook to deliver to
Pat Calhoun the votes of alliance
members of the legislature. Dr. C.
W. Macune sold out to Pat Calhoun,
and so did Lon Livingston. I can
produce a witness who saw Calhoun
pay Macune SI,OOO in Calhoun’s of
fice. As to Livingston, he did his
best to bulldoze me into calling off
the fight which I was making on the
Calhoun candidacy. I defied him.
No man worked harder against the
‘Calhoun business than I did, but the
bishop, as usual, allows me no credit.
The Farmers’ Alliance, as e such,
did not figure in the campaign—
though the sell-out of Macune and
Livingston dealt the order a blow
from which it never recovered.
As to National Prohibition.
How the prohibition cause can be
injured by the election of prohibi
tion candidates, I fail to see. Coun-
ties elect prohibition members of the
legislature with good results. If the
counties can do this with good re
sults, why not the states? I cannot
see how the election of a prohibition
candidate for governor would hurt
the cause of prohibition.
There are some mighty good men
who vote the national prohibition
ticket. They seem to think that the
country would be be lost if a prohi
bition candidate were elected presi
dent. How Bilhop Candler thinks
about this, I do not know.. There
was in Thomson a brave, consistent
Methodist preacher, whom I love and
honor, that voted for Swallow for
president in 1904. Being a prohibi
tionist in principle, this Methodist
minister voted the national prohibi
tion ticket. Did Bishop Candler do
so?
Or did he vote for Judge Parker,
whose campaign was officially man
aged by Thomas Taggart, the saloon
and gambling hell keeper? Tom Tag
gart. who runs barrooms and gam
bling tables, was the official com
mander-in-chief of the Parker cam
paign. Was Bishop Candler one of
those prohibitionists who followed
the saloon and gambling hell keeper?
Dr. Candler has much to say about
safeguarding the churches from con
taminating political influences. He
says it eloquently—for his command
of words and thoughts is superb.
Forcibly he warns us against parti
san politics and machinations.
But did those Methodist ministers
who talked and voted for William
L. Peek, James K. Hines and Sea
born Wright do the Methodist Church
any more harm than those Method
ist ministers who followed Dr. Cand
ler and voted for W. J. Northen and
W. Y. Atkinson?
If the sultry atmosphere which
reigns in Texarkana, Texas, is not
altogether too oppressive, I would
like for the bishop to give us the
answer to that question.
Also to this: Did those Methodist
preachers who voted for Swallow in
1904 inflict any greater damage up
on the Methodist Church than was
inflicted by those Methodist preach
ers who followed Dr. Candler and
voted the ticket of Parker and his
gambling hell manager?
Partisan politics, indeed! Who is
more of a partisan in politics than
Brother Warren Candler? A man of
his powerful convictions, masterful
nature, and pugnacious temperament
could no more keep out of partisan
politics than a dusty duck could keep
out of cool, accessible water.
Is it possible that the bishop .is
not flware of the fact that he is
known throughout the state as a par
tisan of the tribe of the stalwarts?
Did he not smite us old pops, hip
and thigh? In almost every cam
paign where issues are important, is
not the great influence of the bishop
felt on what he thinks is the right
sine? Such is my impression. Good
men ought to take part in politics.
The good men must not allow the
bad men to rule. Therefore the good
men must take a hand in politics,
and make themselves felt on the side
of the right. They will make their
mistakes even as Candler did in 1896,
but they must keep on trying.
Why do we now have such an im
provement in the musical services of
the church ? Because the wiser Chrfo-
(Continued on Page Fourteen.)
PAGE ELEVEN