The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1891-07-23
The ". G. 7. U. Of stanton.

u uuu OAtAI IEfUBLiCAN % July gu,
there appeared an article from thie
place dated July LIST, under the monde.
plume OF "a Citizen, . in which certain
gross charges are made against the
Woman's Christian Temperance Union,
of Stanton and Marshallton. The
charge is that of boycotting Mr.. John
w. Bennett, our butcher. Now, "eiti.
zen," you seem to lay all the blame OF
closing the saloon at Stanton ON these
women, while you admit that there
was IA blunder In the application list
Why should these women be held re.
sponsible for "a blunder In the appli-
cation list Then surely, if you are a
law-abiding Citizen" 1t ought not TO
be your desire that the court should
issue license when the requirements
OF law have not been complied with.
You speak in your article "of the
closing of these hotels" / was
not aware that more than one
culean" efforts OF these women, as
the application was twice made for a
new hotel at Marshallton and were
twice refused. You say the CLOSING Of
these hotels" will effect few outside of
the travelling public. II this DO true,
why do the liquor-loving citizens of
Stanton keep up such hideoUs howl
because the saloon Is closed2 The own
ers and the travelling public ought to he
the most disturbed il they are the only
ones that are affected"
III Marshallton citizens require and
can get from 10 to 20 kegs OF beer per
week with which to quench their thirst,
and they can get 1t fust as we'll with
out saloon In our midst, they ought
to be as well satisfied.
Then you make the impression that
more boys have been drunk In STAN
ton since the saloon has been closed
than before. Then, Ii whiskey is what
the whiskey and beer loving people of
Stanton and Marshaliton want and, il
they can get more without than with Il
saloon, they surely ought to be graft
lied that the saloon is closed.
But you write, you say not "to pic
turc the results ofLocal Option" which
YOU do nevertheless, but TO condemn
the actions OF the members of the w. |
Q. L. U. in boycotting our worthy citi- |
zen, Mr.. John w. Bennett. Up to July |
LIST there had been no meeting OF the |
w. G, L. U. since the adjournment of
court.
What tho members did therefore,
they did upon their own individual re-
sponsibility, and not by adoption of |
resolution by the Union to that effect. |
Haven't these women right to buy
meat OF whom they please? What put
them under more responsibility and
obligations to Mr.. Bennett than to
any other butcher? 1t seems to me,
you want to "boycott' tho W. c. T. U. |
and compel them to patronize Mr. |
Bennett to the exclusion of all other
butchers. These women have right |
TO buy OF whom they please as this is |
a free and not monarchical govern |
fnent. Who made you a Judge rs to |
the personal rights of the W. C. T. W
You say MIR. Bennett Is a moral man; |
that he never tasted liquor or used |
profanity in his life. This may
he true, but tell me why Mr..
Bennett always testitles in court |
in favor of tho saloonY Why does he
throw hisiniluence on the side of that |
which sends seventy-flve thousand to
drunkardss graves ierery Year, Why |
docs he so frequently visit the hotel |
ii he Is such a temperance man? You
speak OF the contradictory. evidence
Of Mr.. Bennett and neighbor, the
one testifying that the hotel did not
annoy HIN and the other that it did,
then you ask this question, Now IL /
Lhis neighbor Was SO terribly annoyed
lor year with the hotel why did he
move last Spring into house much
nearer, and whore he could both hear
and see move OF hotel life.n
Ibis sounds as though this neighbor
referred to, moved in the other house
because it was nearer the hotel than
the former house, and that is an evil
lenoe that the hotel did not disturb
him, whereas tho owner of the former
house desired to occupy it himself
md there was no other alternative
han for him to move out, there being
10 house vacant that suited him.
In a dictatorial spirit you conclude
your boycott article by addressing the
aides of the W. q. 4. U. in the follow
ng manner.
NOW, one more y ord to you, ladies
II he W. G. L. U. Let your kindlier
ceiling prevail in this matter, declare
four boycott oil, for it Is surely not
lie growth OF a Christian splritn DC.
Vow, Mr. Citizen, how dare you take
'lties with the saloon and against these
women? They are seeking to close up I
lie saloon which are eDgendering
more strife and ill-feeling among
.eighEols,' and are doing a thousand (
lines more to empty the pews of
than the refusal of these
women to purchase meat of Mr.. Ben
lett.
Why do you find SO much fault with
hese women, ard SO little or no fault
With the destructive influence of the
aloon in being responsible for SO per !
eHt of the luHaey, 70 per cent of the
ilvorces. IS Per cent of thepauperism,
. per cent of the crimes committed?
I these figures are not positive
roof that the liquor traffic engenders
tiife and i'll feeling among neighbofs
What Isl
Let these elect ladies' alone. Fire !
our next epistalatory shot, not at .
hese women, but at those who are !,
eeking to perpetuate this saloon
usiness. You are on the wrong side. !
A FRIEND OF THE BoYs.