The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1900-03-29
Repabilean LeAaefs
Responsible For Defeat OF clark Bill.

hehuOnbhDio FOT Ueitht VI bthTk nsits
The following letter by Rev. p.
A. Baker to the State Journal has
not been published py that organ:
Columbus, Ohio, March 16, 1900.
Editor State Journal, City:
Dear Sir In your editorial this
morning entitled "The Party and
the Clark Bill" you say: "The
friends of the Clark local option
bill, in the bitterness of their dis
appointment over its defeat, made
some charges which the facts do
not substantiate. Their attempt
to make 1t appear that Governor
Nash took any part in the contest
Is q gross injustice, and to charge
the defeat to the Republican party
as a party is equally misleading
and unjust"
The above statement Is unwar-
ranted by the facts. The friends of
the Clark bill ln the official state
ment which was published in the
Journal of the 10Th, are the official
utterances, and they are compre-
hended in the first clause of that
statement, namely: "The Clark
bill was defeated at the dictation
of certain party leaders" This is
true and can be proven. Senator
Hanna did say to certain members
of the house and Senate after the
election last fall that "There must
be no temperance legislation
Does the Journal doubt this? The
friends of the measure have it on
the very best authority that Sen.
ator Foraker called up member
of the state senate the evening be.
fore the Clark bill was considered
by the senate and ask him to vote
against it; this me mber had faith.
fully promised many Of his consti.
tuents that he would support the
measure. Mr.. Foraker's law part.
ner was also present lobbying
against the bill, and In numeroue
other ways Senator Foraker's infiu'
ence was felt. Does the Journal
doubt this, and are these not re-
garded as certain party leaders p
We have no evidence that Govern
or Nash directly interfered, bu,
Mr.. Carl HOster, q member Of the
governors staff, gave out the state
ment, which, under quotation
marks, was published in the news
papers, that the governor was op
posed to the bill, but the governor
nor anyone who assumed to speal
for him, at any time or place evel
made public denial of the trutf
of these statements, and tht
friends of the measure labOreG
under constant disadvantages be
cause of these undenied assertions
Lieutenant Governor Caldwell
whose nomination was decided BY
the leaders of the party, has beer
the most active and bitter in hi
opposition to the measure. A mum
ber of government employees pass
ing through the city to and from
Washington haye stopped off lonl
enough to tell members of tn
general assembly that the bill
ought to be defeated and that the,
expressed the feeling of the leader
at Washington. The newspaper
have teemed with statements tina
the administration, both state an,
national, was opposed to the pass
age of the measure, but strang
enough no representative of eithe
has ever thought it worth while il
the interest of fairness to den,
these statements. In consideration
then, of the above facts, and 9th
ers in our possession which are ye
more direct, the friends of tn
Clark bill were amply justified II
their statement that "the ClarI
bill was defeated at the dictatiol
of certain party leaders."--Colum
bus Record.