Newspaper Page Text
WATSON’S EDITORIALS
'Excitement in Mississippi.
The great John Sharp Williams was given
such a close shave in the Senatorial primary
that he and his friends have not yet got over
the scare.
The worst of it is, they know that if the test
of strength were to be made again, Vardaman
would beat Williams by a larger majority than
any 648 votes.
They know that, at this very moment, a
majority of the white men of Mississippi are
opposed to Williams.
The fact that the whole country is inclined
to laugh at Williams, and that only the corpor
ation press jubilates over his pitiful little sury
plus of 648 votes, riles the Williams following
to a point that makes them lose control of
their good breeding.
The fact that Mr. Watson and “The Jeffer
sonian” took a hand in this nationally-impor
tant contest, is considered by the Williams
men as an intolerable aggravation.
Mr. Watson’s offense would not have been
so much of an unpardonable sin, had he not
told the people of Mississippi a few things
about the congressional record of John Sharp
Williams which other editors had not men
tioned.
Because he did this, and because the revela
tion hurt John Sharp, the Williams men howl
dismally.
The Jackson Daily News is a Williams or
gan. Alluding to the even-tempered article
in which Mr. Watson showed up the record of
Mr. Williams on the Rate bill, the News makes
use of the following language, referring to the
article aforesaid and to Mr. Watson:
‘‘Outrageous slander and infamous libel,”
“a willful, wanton and malicious lie,” “a plain,
ordinary liar, lacking even the degree of intel
ligence necessary to tell a plausible falsehood;”
‘‘the Georgia demagogue;” “this blatherskite;”
“this renegade,, this political Pariah;” “Toro
Watson of Georgia ostracized by the demo
cratic party of his own state, refused a place
in its councils and held in contempt by every
true democrat in America;” “scurrillous little
magazine, bristling with falsehood and libel;”
“this contemptible little scribbler;” “this ver
bose quidnunc;” “a dirty falsehood;” “this
nasty little hypocrite WHO HAS BEEN
KICKED AND CUFFED AROUND THE
STREETS OF ATLANTA WITH
OUT SHOWING THE MANHOOD TO
RESENT IT, until he has forfeited the re
spect of every decent citizen of his own state.”
The Union Label appears conspicuously on
the page where the above is printed, and no
man who truly respects that bade can fail
to wonder how such a paper ever got the right
to use it.
How much the cause of John Sharp Will
iams may have been advanced by the edito
rial from which we have jjuoted, we have
no means of knowing. How many people
there are who believe that Mr. Watson “has
lost the respect of every decent democrat in
America,” and has been “kicked and cuffed
around the streets of Atlanta without having
the manhood to resent it,” we really could not
guess.
There is one thing, however, which we will
undertake to suggest as a very safe proposition,
WATSON’S WEEKLY JEFFERSONIAN ’
A Newspaper Devoted to the Advocacy of the Jeffersonian Theory of Government. •
PUBLISHED BY
THOS. E. WATSON and J. D. WATSON,
Editors and Proprietors
Temple Court Building, Atlanta, Ga.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA, THURSDAY, AUGUST 22, 1907.
and that is that John Sharp Williams would
not be willing to publicly endorse what the
“News” has said, no£ to make any experi
menis upon the supposition that Mr. Watson is
the right man to “kick and cuff” on the streets
oLAtlanta, or elsewhere.
•
44.
Dismissing this absurd and amazing state
ment with the scorn it deserves, we will come
at once to the matter which is important
towit—the record of John Sharp Williams on
the Rate bill.
Has Watson spoken falsely concerning the
congressional course of Mr. Williams on that
bill?
If so, Mr. Williams is the man who should
take Mr. Watson to task. Let Mr. Williams
deny what Mr. Watson said —if it isn’t true.
As yet, Mr. Williams* has not denied it, so
far as we know.
And we venture this prediction: Mr. Wil
liams will not deny it.
Why? BECAUSE HE CANNOT.
Did not Mr. Williams open his campaign
with a statement to the effect that he was the
public benefactor who made the R. F. D. law
mandatory? Did he not tell the people of Mis
sissippi that Mr. Watson’s amendment to the
P. O. Appropriation Act of 1893 left it “option
al” with the P. O. Department to use the ap
propriation ? He certainly did.
Did we not produce the original amendment
of Feb. 17, 1893, and show that the words
“shall be” were there, just as they are in all
the subsequent acts?
We certainly did.
Therefore, the record itself proves that John
Sharp Williams spoke falsely about the matter.
He was willing to deny his fellow man just
credit and to take to himself what did not
belong to him.
“ShalLbe expended” was the wording of Mr.
Watson’s Amendment, which the House after
voting against it the first time, adopted when
Mr. Watson persevered and tried again.
Mr. Cleveland and his New York P. M. G.
Bissell, simply refused to obey a mandatory
Act of Congress; and the file of the old Peo
ples Party Paper will show that Mr. Watson
denounced President Cleveland then, for his
refusal to obey the law.
John Sharp Williams was not even in con
gress, at the time. It was Postmaster General
William L. Wilson who nut the law into ef
fect: and Mr. Williams did not even have the
grace to lay a flower of appreciation upon the
rrave of this great and pure man, WHOSE
SERVICE TO HIS COUNTRY, IN DEM
ONSTRATING THE PRACTICAL SUC
CESS OF THE R. F. D. SYSTEM DE
SERVES A MONUMENT IN EVERY
STATE OF THE UNION.
But what was it that Mr. Watson said
about the record of Mr. Williams on the Rate,
bill? Let us hunt for these “dirtv lies;” for,
while the cantion to the editorial in the News
is “WATSON’S DIRTY LIE,” the editorial
itself ceases to deal with one lie, but lassoes
and corrals quite a hejd.
What are thev?
With a prudence which is noticeable if
not admirable, the polished editor neglects
to catalogue these dirty lies. Didn’t want
to soil his snowy hands, you see.
SUBSCRIPTION PRICE. SI.OO PER TEAR
Advertising Rates Furnished on Application.
Entfrad at Pssttfici, Atlanta, Ga., January It, tqo7, as tttand
flats mail matter.
But let us have an inventory, nevertheless;
it is necessary for us to know just what these
“dirty lies” are for they worried Williams
mightily.
(1) He was accused of voting with the
Express Company people, to save those rob
bers from governmental regulation.
(2) He was accused of voting with the el
egraph and Telephone people to save those
extortioners from governmental control.
(3) He was accused of voting with the
Pullman Palace Car people to save those pub
lic plunderers from governmental supervision
and regulation.
(4) He was accused of “Standing in” with
the Republicans to take away from the Inter-
State Commerce Commission the vast advant
age given it by the old Reagan bill, viz.; the
right to begin proceedings against the trans
portation companies when the Commission it
self thought it should be done.
It was worth millions to the railroads to
throw upon the individual citizen the burden
of having to begin the proceedings against
unjust rates, discriminations, etc. —and John
Sharp Williams voted with the railroads to
shear away a portion of the hair in which lay
the strength of the Government’s Samson.
Mr. Williams was also criticised because of
his opposition to the Hearst bill which Mr.
Watson regarded as the best Rate bill that
was offered—the best by far.
But we will not insist upon that point—
for we now learn from the News that the au
thor of the bill is a “millionaire—demagogue
and athiestic anarchist.”
Therefore—away with his bill. However
much we may want a horse to ride, we must
never buy, borrow or hire a horse if its owner
happens to be a bad man. We must walk,
crawl, or stand still, until we can get a horse
from a man who is good.
Therefore, it does not matter that Hearst’s
bill was the one which the railroads most
feared, and which those who wanted genuine
government control most wanted. t Hearst is
a bad man; and we will not buy, borrow, or
hire his horse. We will walk, first.
■'<T[
Leaving out Mr. Williams’ opposition to the
Hearst bill, we will simply ask him four
questions:
(1) Why is it wrong for the Government to
regulate and moderate the charges madd
against the people by the Express Companies?
(2) Why would it be wrong for the Gov
ernment to have supervision of the rates charg
ed by Telegraph and Telephone Companies?
(3) Why were you not willing that the
Government should have the right to say}
whether the prices charged by the Pullman
Car company are reasonable and just?
(4) Why did you vote to take away from the
National Commerce Commission the author
ity to take action on its own motion, whenever
the discriminations, or unreasonable rates of
the railroads seemed to render such action nec
essary ?
Judge Reagan of Texas—an able, experienc
ed, and pure statesman—thought the Com
mission ought to have that power. Under the
Reagan bill, that power was given. Under
the recent Rate bill that power was taken
away. You, John Sharp Williams, helped the
Ml*