The western sentinel. [volume] (Winston-Salem, N.C.) 1887-1926, 1889-05-16
MIR. LEAKS LETTER.
He Explains His Vote to the People
of Stokes.


EDITOR OF The SENTINEL A cor
respondent of the Germanton Times,
signing himself "No Rights" has seen
fit to criticise my letter in the Dan
bury Reporter and, in justice to myself,
| deem it necessary to put myself III
the right light before the people of
Stokes county, concerning my vote on
the bill to prohibit the sale of liquor
in Danbury.
"No Rights" makes allegations as
follows: 1. That petition was sent
me asking the Legislature to prohibit
the sale of liquor in Danbury; End,
That [ voted to kill the bill and in
doing so represented class instead of
the masses of the people; 3rd. That
my vote was influenced by desire to
cstch the votes of the drinking popu-
lation; 4th; That since the bill failed
to pass, men have been seen drunk on
the streets of Danbury.
Now, in answer to these l have this
to say "A petition $was sent to me
asking the Legislature to prohibit the
sale of liquor in Danbury, and [ in
troduced a bill to that effect bat, fol-
lowing close on the heels of the petit
ton, came letters from leading citizens
of the town assuring me that the great
majority of the citizens preferred open
bar-rooms to secret gin mills and ask
ing me to vote against the bill. They
further stated that the great majority
of names on the petition were those of
women and children, both white and
black, and ranging from three gears
old and upwards Relying on their
word (for they are among the best
and truest men in the county, went
before the committee and explained
the circumstances and the bill was
killed. In doing so [ represented the
people of Danbury but failed to rep
resent the class of men who run bar
rooms under other names and who
wish to cut off competition by pro-
hibiting law. [ represented the law
abiding people and not the law
breakers That is why ''No Rights
is kicking. [ never have voted and /
never will vote to impose law on the
people of Stokes county when they
don't want it.
In voting as | did, [ was neither in
fuenced by fear, favor, reward or hope
Of reward, neither knowing or caring
whether it would win votes or not
did it from sense of duty to my con
stituents and | have no apologies to
make.
Since that bill passed, men probably
have got drunk i'll Danbury Although
| haven't seen them, don't doubt it.
but am sorry. There is no man who
loves sobriety more than / and | am
ready at any and all times 10 promote
it. But I want to say this: Men got
drunk i'll Danbury before saloons were
opened as we'll as since. They were
then able to get as much liquor tr II
grog-shop run auder another name
as they are at the present from oper
bar rooms. The passage or the non
passage of the bill has nothing to d.
with it. When l was elected count,
commissioner [ really believed that t,
close the saloons in Danbury 'soulC
promote soberness and good order, bu
to my great astonishment it was N
better than before. But not Ion,
after that time | saw my error il
voting for local prohibition and re
GREETED my action in the matter an'
have been ever since opposed to pro
hibiting the sale of liquor in Danbnry
as it Will always bring about illega
traffic and the result is that our dock
ct is crowded with offenders whicl
frequently heaps heavy tax on til
people of Stokes. You may stop
now and it will be the same way again
Having disposed of the gentleman
allegations will touch on gratuitoU
fling which he makes at my res tuttoI
concerning the sovereignty of Goo
He calls it "bill." He probabI
knows the difference between blockad
corn liquor and rye when sold on til
sly in prohibition town, but he ceI
,, tainly doesn't know enough of legisla
, tion to offer an intelligent criticisl
,, on matters above his sphere.
! Yes, Mr.. "No Rights [ shall b
! glad when the records of my eours
in the Legislature can be spread BE-
E fore the people of Stokes, having tt
! conciousness of performing my dut
to them to the best of my ability.
Respectfully,