The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1891-06-19
"HeW to the Line"

torial and otherwise" appearing in
your issue ofthe week previous, but he
does not handle his article as though
he really believed what he was writ.
ing. One of the articles he refers to
was evidently the one written by
myself. therefore 1 ask your permits.
sion to reply to his editorial.
He says: concerning
the disturbances on the previous Sat-
urday night and Sunday morning,
that nothing of the kind had ever be.
fore happened in this good town of
Oakland" I most certainly do say
that during the six years of local OPP
tion in the county, the magistrates
docket and the court records will not
show any disturbance to equal the
one referred to in my article. and l
challenge my friend of the Democrat
to name the instance he refers to and
prove them by the records Of the
court or otherwise. While my first
article does not even intimate "that
nothing of the kind could have hap
pened under u prohibition law, such
AS had been in force for d NUMBER of
years past" say that nothing like
that did occur, nor [ believe, would
have occurred, had not whiskey been
sold to the participants by the saloon.
keepers engaged in the business at
the present time.
1 am exceedingly glad the editor
of the Democrat tells US that he is
mot the apUiOgist nor defender of
disorder, drunkenness or any viola
tlon of the laws of the land" for had
he not made that statement. nine
out of every ten readers of his paper
would doubtless have thought he
was in some way interested, and
wanted 10 hide the facts from the
public. He says that "it is just as
we'll to tell the truth about these
things" and I certainly agree with
him. l can prove the statements
made 10 my first article. not only by
the court records, but by many of
Oakland's most reputable citizens.
That the Democrat can not possibly
do.
certainly agree with my friend,
of the Democrat. that Justice Con.
der will do his duty, but not case
equal to the one in question was
brought before him during the six
years of local option. And l will
venture the assertion which do not
believe can be successfully denied,
although I have not examined
the police magistrates docket. that
more persons have been before His
Honor charged with lawlessness and
drunkenness during the six months
of licensed saloons, than during the
whole six years of local option.
Now, Mr.. Editor, l would like to
inquire when, during local option.
it was found necessary to have pc.
liceman patrol our streets all night
to preserve order, as We now have?
When, during the local option
period, did YOU see men laying drunk
on the platforms like the one l called
your attention to, and others [ have
seen, and when. during that time.
could you count at least six or eight
countrymen leaving Oakland. going
in the same direction, and all of them
more or less under the influence of
whiskey-some 80 much so they
could not walk.
Who is to blame for this great
change? 1 must answer again: 1t
is the whiskey, the salnon-keeper.
the legislators who framed and passed
the bill and those who voted for
license when the question was SUBJ
mitted. They must all bear their
share of the responsibility.
In conclusion. will say that l
was considerably surprised that the
editor of the Democrat would at
tempt to cover up such disgraceful
acts as those referred to. especially,
when he knows 1t was all caused by
whiskey-something he says he
could not think of selling. To detest
a thing so utterly that he would not
sell it, and then try to excuse the
acts caused by it. by attempting to
overshadow it by imaginary occur
rences. is something 1 can not COM
prehend. Of course 1 know 1 am
dull in the "comprehending." line.
but not so much so as to blind me to
facts that can not be successfully re.
futed. Respectfully.
j. ED KILDow.
Oakland, Nd, June 8. 1891.
Mountain Lake Park.