Newspaper Page Text
PAGE FOURTEEN
BISHOP CANDLER AND MB
WATSON.
(Continued from Page Eleven.)
tians got tired of letting the devil
have all the good music.
How can better conditions ever be
brought about in the social and polit
ical relations of men, if the good men
do not take part in partisan politics"/
Bad men are not going to do the
good work; who is to do it, then,
if the good men remain passive"/
The Anti-Lawyer Crusade.
The bishops says: ‘‘ To what
lengths will not a politician go?”
Then he repeats the old story of my
abandoning the practice of law and
disposing of my books “to make fair
weather with a wave of anti-lawyer
sentiment.’ The bishop’s metaphors
are mixed, but his animus is plain
enough.
There was no wave of anti-lawyer
sentiment among the farmers wiio
were first alliance men and then pop
ulists. Their leaders were almost
•
all lawyers. Their most popular ora
tors were lawyers. Their candidates
for congress were nearly all lawyers.
It was not until after 1 was elected
to congress, by an unprecedented ma
jority, that 1 closed my law office,
sold my Georgia Reports, gave away
solving to devote myself to congres
sional duties with all my mind and
heart. So sure was lof keeping my
place in the confidence of the tenth
congressional district that 1 bought
me a little, narrow slice of a house
in Washington, so that I might be
out of the hurly-burly of hotel life
and could pursue my work and my
studies in quiet.
Ah, bishop, I was a younger man
then, and had my dreams. From a
boy I had looked forward to the
time when I, should have earned
enough money at the bar to support
me in comfort, so that I might be
independent and could follow my in
born craving for public life. In
1889, it seemed that the time had
come for me to realize the dreams of
my boyhood. Therefore, without any
‘‘theatrical outpouring of contempt
upon the profession,” among whose
members stood many of my most ar
dent friends, I left the practice, sim
ply in the spirit of him who lays
down one job to take up another. My
error consisted in the belief that 1
could hold my place in congress. In
all my calculations for the future, I
admit one blunder —a very stupid
and fatal blunder. I did not allow'
for the possibility that the majority
vote of the people might be taken
away from them, by those who held
the election machinery in the city of
Augusta.
The last time I ever talked with the
late evangelist, Sam Jones, he said to
me, “Watson, they’ll count you out. ”
So little did I anticipate anything
of the kind that I scoffed at the
shrewder man’s warning. He was
right, and it was not long before*!
had to go back to the court hcfllse to
earn a living.
Says the bishop: “Let us bewaro
of the prohibitionist who jumps to
the front on a spectacular occasion.”
Yes, let use beware of him. He’s
a bad egg. Such a prohibitionist
must be drenched on Coco-Cola, at
the rate of ten or fifteen glasses per
day, so that his nerves will become
steady, and he will not do any spec
tacular jumping. To make temper
ance speeches with Dr. Cofer in
1875, to conduct a newspaper con-
WATSON’S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN.
troversy with two of the strongest
writers on the other side, when pro
hibition was being agitated in Mc-
Duffie county nearly thirty years ago;
to support Henry Roney when lie
made the first winning fight against
whiskey in McDuffie county; to help
pass the legislative act under which
more than two-thirds of the counties
in Georgia have driven out the sa
loons; to make the first assault up
on the congressional barroom, when
to do so roused the hottest wrath on
both sides of the house —all this, and
more, is nothing. It was “grandstand
play.” It was done for political
effect. A selfish aim and the lack of
conviction tainted it all.
Ah, bishop! Is your Christian
charity confined to the giving of
money out of the purse, and to tire
relaxing of the grip upon lands and
tenements? Is it your rule to judge
others as harshly as you have judged
me ? I would have to have some con
clusive evidence, something that left
no doubt in my mind, before I—holdingl—hold
ing to the great office of bishop—
would deliberately charge, or inti
mate, that one who has no office and
is seeking none, has been actuated by
ignoble motives in every blow that he
has ever struck for reform..
God, in His infinite mercy, pity
the man who is so wicked and so
false as you would have it believed
that I am!
“Grandstand play” at Washing
ton? Why, bishop, you forget the
facts. A book which 1 had published
made reference to drunkenness in
congress, and to its immediate source,
the congressional barroom. I said
nothing about the matter on the floor
of the house at all. It was not until
• *
General Wheeler read from the book
and denounced me, that I was forced
to defend myself. He accused me,
bishop, as you have done —of bring
ing false charges.
What would you have done, if you
had been in my place, bishop?
Would you not have defended
yourself, and reiterated what you
knew to be the truth?
In doing so, would your stand for
the right have been fairly and justly
described as a “grandstand play?”
Really Bishop, your allusion to
that episode which was a trying one
to me, is so scornful, so contemp
tuous, that 1 fear your sympathies
were not with me in that struggle,
any more than they were in 189 b.
Letter for Prohibition.
A Methodist minister whose friend
ship is precious to me, was on the
cars a few days ago, on his way to
Atlanta to help in the prohibition
fight. He happened to mention Mc-
Duffie county. A man on the train
exclaimed: “That’s Tom Watson’s
county. About ten years ago we had
a prohibition campaign in my coun
ty, and it was a letter from Tom
Watson, type-written on one page of
paper, that earned the day for prohi
bition.”
Such things, I have done so often
that I do not even recall the incident
to which this unknown friend allud
ed. If I thought it was worth while
to do so, I would lengthen the record
with much more of the same kind.
The bishop dwells again on the
Hawes-Stovall race in 1884. Perhaps
a simple relation of the facts may
be in order.
We had a hot local contest in the
year when Mr. Roney ran on the
prohibition ticket. Whether that con-
test was in Judge Roney’s first race
or second is wholly immaterial. The
important point is that we got pro
hibition for McDuffie county, pre
vious to the election of 1884. Wheth
er we got it four years before or six
years before, is a matter of no con
sequence, in this connection. In the
winter of 1881-2 I had the misfor
tune to become involved in a personal
difficulty with the late Colonel W. D.
Tutt. Owing to circumstances which
need not be detailed here, I was
threatened with ruin. As much as
an appeal against what seemed to be
a general condemnation as anything
else, I became a candidate for the
legislature.
The struggle which followed was
fierce. The county was torn up
split all to pieces. Feeling was in
tense. First one candidate and then
a second, was put in the field against
me. Thus I was forced to make
practically two campaigns. They lit
erally wore me out. My practice suf
fered so much, and my debts had
become so pressing, that I made up
my mind to let politics alone for a
while.
At the end of my term in the leg
islature, I virtually had to start life
over. If everything I possessed had
been put up and sold, the proceeds
would not have more than paid my
debts.
McDuffie county already had the
prohibition law, and I did not doubt
that Mr. Stovall’s effort to secure
authority to repeal it would fail. No
body asked me to make any speech
or write any article. So far as Dr.
Candler’s speeches are concerned, my
recollection is that he and other
preachers were asked to hold forth
on prohibition from their pulpits, and
that they did so, I can not recall
that there was any series of mass
meetings of the usual sort.
My recollection is that Stovall’s
defeat was generally predicted after
his announcement against our prohi
bition law. I remember a saying
that was current at the time, to wit:
“George Stovall has allowed Jordan
White to ruin his campaign.” It
was understood that Mr. Stovall had
injected this issue in the campaign at
the instance of Mr. White.
It frequently happens that a can
didate, and the family and a close
friend of the candidate, are disap
pointed by the attitude of those who
say when approached: “I am not
taking any part”—meaning, of
course, active part. The candidate
and his immediate supporters may
take this ill, and may construe it in
away not meant. So it might hap
pen that the candidate might say of
So and So: “He is not giving me
his support,” meaning that he is not
actively at work.
The voter, of course, is the best
judge of the propriety of his own
course of action; and has a right 1
exercise his judgment as to the nec
essity of activity.
Work for Prohibition.
We often go quietly to the polls
and vote our preference, when we
had not made speeches, written cards,
or taken part in futile sidewalk
wrangles. Sometimes we want peace
—especially after a storm. I had
had just as much of local political
fighting as I had any stomach for at
that time; and it seemed to me the
part of wisdom to let well enough
alone. After the White Oak camp
meeting, in the summer of 1884, it
was plain enough that Stovall’s
goose was cooked.
Not only in that election did I vote
to sustain our prohibition law in Mc-
Duffie, but have done so on all sub
sequent occasions. When Mr. Guy
Calloway made his race in 1904 to
repeal the prohibitory act, and bring
in the dispensary, I not only sup
ported Mr. Matt Gross, who favored
prohibition, but managed his cam
paign when he was absent from
Thomson.
There was great danger to the law
in 1902, for -the reason that the
Southern Express Company was
bringing so many jugs into the coun
ty that many of the prohibitionists
became discouraged. We had a pub
lic meeting at the academy and I was
one of those who addressed it, ad
vocating the further effort to en
force the law. I advised that we
raise money to employ detectives and
to pay rewards for the conviction of
blind tigers; and my wife, my daugh
ter, and myself were liberal contrib
utors to the fund.
If the bishop had read more care
fully the cards signed, respectively,
John T. West and E. W. Hawes, ho
would not have said that my state
ment concerning the vote of 1884
was “denied by those who claim to
know.” Neither of those gentlemen
v say that 1 did not vote. Closely
read, both cards can be accounted for
by allowing for a natural misunder
standing, growing out of my alleged
use of the words, “Am taking no
part,” or “took no part.” Neither
of those gentlemen say that I did not
vote.
Is it not a remarkable thing that
Bishop Candler should harp so much
upon the merit of his conduct in go- (
ing to McDuffie county to preach
against the barrooms in 1884? Is it
not unusual for a minister of the
Gospel to claim so much credit for
work which is in the line of his di* ’
ty ? 1 venture to say that there ai
thousands of preachers, throughou ■
the country, who have preached at
written against the liquor traffic wit
out ever a thought that they had do/
anything extraordinary.
\ et Bishop Candler is wonderful
impressed with the fact that in rid
ing on the cars from Augusta to
Thomson —a distance of 37 miles—to
preach in favor of prohibition he did
a heroic service that entitles him to
everlasting and exceptional honor.
‘‘ I spoke and I wrote, ’ ’ says the
bishop. Os course he did. That was
his line of work and duty. Warren
Candler was always a good talker and
a good writer, and there was never
any difficulty in getting him to talk
and write. Just between us, girls,
there are few people who are fonder
of seeing their names in print thari *
Warren Candler.
Now, in 1884, here was a young
preacher who, being human, had his
natural ambition. It was honorable
ambition, of course. He wanted to
“get on.” How could he “get on”
without making good use of oppor
tunities to impress the world with his
genius, his eloquence, his power?
1 here may not have been in his
eyes, at that time, the vision of a
bishopric, but in a general way Broth
er Warren wanted “to get on.” So
he spoke and wrote, widening and
deepening the reputation which was
to bear him upward and onward.
And now from the pinnacle of a
bishopric, this successful man who has