Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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*