The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1892-08-25

NeTTLES STRIKES BACK.
a Scathing Reply to tho Published Card
OF MIR. Childs.

of MIR. Childs.
EDITOR REGISTER: Mr.. l.. ID. Childs
reply, as published in the Columbia pa
pers last Saturday. is Oil excellent spec
linen Of ingenious evasiveness, in
which he gullelessly avoids the
point at issue, and labOrously endeay
ors to make the casual reader believe
that have not been deceived, but that
he Is the deluded one. L reatlirm most
positively every word in my former
letter, and feel confident that | Shall
prove to any unbiased mind that am
not the one that has done the deceiv-
Ing.
Mr. Chi!dS reply Was published nine
Gays after my letter was published.
Was there method in this? Nine days
Is lorg time for the public to remem.
ter the contents Of column article.
III the 'wo letters could be read to-
Scther, | would not need to say another
word, and L shall cJninc myself t,
the one central idea of my former LET
ter.
! resigned from the state Prohibitio
Executive Committee, as before dis
| unctly stated, on account of Mr.. Child,
construction or Interpretation of the
pledges to be made by candidates for
the Legislature. AT first was in favor
of simply pledgjng the Candidates to
abide the result Of the separate box
Da'ipl, but after Senator irby wrote to
| Mr.. Ch!iuS that the Candidates might
be asked amy questions on the subject.
| vas relieved from my pledge to the
| State Democratic Executive Committee
and while still believe my plan the
best calculated to bring cut the 'argest
vote III the box, and the best final re-
suits III enforcing the law, yet inter
posed no objections to any catechism
of the candidates, provided the voter
was LETT to vote as he pleased and the
candidate to abide the result of the
ballot.
l hold that as Democrats the will of
the majority should be the controlling
factor In all important questions. |
believed then, and l believe yet, that
a prohibition campaign followed bya
vote on the abstract question freed of
candidate complications, would have
resulted in dsrand pruh;L. tion victory
and that tbs direct vo:e Of the people
would hay e SO interested them in the
subject that they would nave seen to it
that the law was enforced. My plan is
open, frank, based on common sense.
How about Mr.. Childss? lie says that
candidates Tor the Legislature must be
pledged to vote for prohibition regard
less Of how the people vote, and that
even II nine tenJhS OF the people of
the State should vote against prohibit
ton, yet, although having asked them
to express their will in the matter, that
their expressed will must be kicked
aside, totally ignored, and the Legisla-
ture must, nevertheless, vote for pro.
hlbtion. Giarng inconsistency. En-
tlrely undelnocratic. Leading squarely
into Prohibition party! Ii this vote
| Ht the SnnnrDfp u "a hn h,c Il;
garded, why insult the people by ask
} ing them to vote there at all? Is not
thus an attempted deception of the
deepest dye? Ii the vote at the box
means anything, it means that it is to
determine how the members of the
Legislature are TO vote On this ques-
ton If 1t does not mean that it means
nothing.
am p rtectly willing to rest my
case on the above statement, but prob
ably it Will be better to reply to q few
other OF Mr.. Child's "facts."
The Netlles ballot box resolution
adopted by the Prohibition convention
was in order chat the question of pro-
uOltlon may be voted OH by the Demo.
cratic roterS CT The State, SO aS 10 ar.
rive at .he true sentiment of the people
on this important question" 1t ia
Democratic that mGiOritieS shall rule.
| th"r,' ore state, Mr.. CElld's opinion
10 the contrary notWith .tandjng, that
The adoption of this resolution does
give color 20 the idea that the result
Of the vote in the prohibition boxes
was designed to bind the candidates
for the Legi Stature for or against pro-
| lib.LiOr."
Mr. ChilIs lays stress on the "fact"
that rs the result Of IL personal confer
CnCe ut his home in COlu Ilbia, a letter
Waj iSS Led by him to the county cXecu-
tive committees. He knows full well
| that at that conference not one word
was SAID in reference to tho vote in the
box nov binding the vote Of the Lepis-
lature. That POINT was not discussed.
And there j. not one word in that adj
dress, Ii taken as ii whole, intimating
thA1 ihe vote in the box will be ig.
noIcd. On the other hand, he urges
that ts large vote as possible be poll
ed IN tie separate boxes. Mr.. Childs
and | both want prohibition, but the
difference IS this: | believe tho maiOri-
ty OF the people in the State want it,
but am willing to leave it to the peO.
pie themselves to decide the matter.
feeling assured that the law could thus
be better enforced. Mr.. Child is afraid
the people are not yet in favor of pro-
luDltion. that is majority of them,
| ana ne wants TO have prohibition with
or without their consent.
did work with the committee until
he decided that, regardless OF the vote
in tho boxes, candidates for the Legis-
lature must pledge themselves to sup.
port State prohibition bill, and do
want to see prohibition succeed, bat !
do not want movement in the Demo-
cratic party to 50 outrageously disre-
gard the first principles of the party as
to declare IN the outset that majOrities
mean nothing.
am not, as Mr.. Childs charges, bent
on making mischief, for my whole
heart is in the temperance cause, but
as | said before | Cannot give counte-
nance to cause that, while apparent
working under the guise of Democ-
racy, Is in my opinion looking directly
towards the National Prohibition par
! ty. MIR. Chllds has adopted the candi-
date plan which IS opposed to the box
plan. lie should then ctin good faith
with the people, and not ask them to
| do q thing that ne tells thpm will not