The daily gazette., 1875-04-20
Letter from Samuel IOW ysselsd.
For the Gazette.
TO ALL WHOM 1T MAY CONCERN.

L -
For the Gazette.
| TO ALL WHOM 1T MAY CONCERN.
was in Wilmington a few days ago.
and there heard threats that cert in
people would vote the Republican tick
ct at the city election because the Lii
cense Law passed at the session of 1873
was not repealed at the late session of
1873, and that it was promised in the
last campaign by tho Democratic speak
ers in this county that if the Democrat
| ic party was successful they would re-
peal said law, and they had carried the
election and the law had not been re-
pealed. Now, | wish to say few plain
| words, as L am not within the rea ,h of
| any selfish voter, either temperance or
| anti temperance. L am not beholding to
| nor do l want the vote of any man for
| myself for any office; but at the same
time it is my duty to tell the truth and
sympathize' with every voter who has
been imposed upon, for I hold that hon
esty In politics, as in everything else, is
the best policy. Now let us look before
you swear too loud against majority of
the late members from this county
How did their Republican predecessors
from this county in 1873 vote ? To a
man for the present narrow, selfish IL
cense law that no party in this county
bJ resolution in the previous campaign
had demanded. Now, if the Republi-
can members from New Castle county
would. without any previous warning.
vote for, and are therefore the fathers
OF our present narrow, selfish License
Law, will any voter, because our late
| Democratic members, or large majori-
ty OF them from this county failed to
get the present law repealed or amend
1 cd. anUtbinn
themselves In voting the Republican
ticket when these very Republicans in
the Legislature of 1873 voted unapi-
mously Tor the present License Law;
and as they passed it would not com
mon sense seem to dictate to you. enc
mics OF the present License Law, that
these Republicans would be bad set of
hypocrites to lay your grievances before
ana expect repeal from? And this is
not al that these Republican members
OF 1913 entalled upon you; they further
voted 1or the issuing of 100000 worth
of State Bonds to Sussex county TO S.
cure votes enough to carry and pass this
SAID present License Law, and Won fax
payers OF New Castle county have to
pay tDree-fourths of the State tax to
Keep the state Bonds at par And fur
ther, at the late session, Sussex county
wanted more State aid or bonds; and
when she found that she could not get
any member from New Castle county to
swerve, she hooked on the scheme of an
old exploded Bay Shore charter from
: MIuoro 10 smyrna, and by that means
comDlned enough members in the House
, from Kent to help Sussex pass the noted
: state AID or State bond bill through the
! house, ana three members of the Senate
, from this county and two from Kent
killed the said bill i'll the Senate. which
proposed, l believe, to compel the Gov
r ernor to issue $3.50, 900 worth of bonds TO
/ railroad projects in Kent and Sussex
: that weuld never pay, it We are to Judge
}, by some already made. This State Aid
business took up about one-third of the
s session, and L have no doubt if our De.
n mocratlc members of the LEGISLATURE
:. from this county had been as cor, ant as
the republicans of 1873 were, and hu.
;, minated themselves by voting for State
bonds the present License Law could
j. nave been repealed or q new one passed
s OF the loosest kind. Now L submit tc
l. every man who sells or drinks liauo1s OF
l. beer OF any kind-would you not sooner
a put up two years longer with our pres.
e ent License Law than to have had youl
. county Inundated and burdened witt
q UNJUST and unproportioned heavy STATE
taxes to pay interest on State Bonds tC
~ be used and expended to benefit Kent
i and Sussex counties alone? And the re
8 fusal OF Kent and Sussex to repeal ol
d modify the present License Law is not
e all they refused to do because the mem
d bers from New Castle refused to vot,
a for State Bonds, but they further refus
;o ed to pass q law allowing a vote to b,
20 taken III New Castle to ascertain wheth
le or the people in said county was or wa;
10 not in favor of making two counties out
OF New Castle county. The people o.
New Castle county have been at the ten
der mercies of Kent and Sussex coun
b.. ties long enough, and the first thine
to do in this matter in this county oughi
d to be by resolutions of the two parties
n to say whether or not they are in favo
l. of making tive counties out of New Gas
r. tie county and where the division lin,
a shall be, as this is not a political matter
lr but concerns Democrats and Republi
II cans alike, to show the people of Ken
n and Sussex that there is manhood in tn
:, people of New Castle county and tina
:, they expect to be treated as the equal
IL OF the people of Kent and Sussex coun
ties, and that the sovereign rights OF til,
& people OF New Castle county cannot q,
' any longer unredressed; and to this en-,
II this subject should be discussed in Ken
,s and Sussex counties and more liberia
If set of Democratic members sent to til
II next Legislature from said two countie.
10 SAMUEL TOWNSEND.
v Townsend, Del, April 10. 1875.
>,