Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1902-05-29
oUERRY's AND TERRELL'S
RECORDS AS PRoHlBITIoNlSTS
FORSYTH, Ga. May %, 1902

tOhS1 Id MAY 30 ASN-"
To the Editor of TheOournal:
So much has been written in oehah OF
the several candidates for governor that
had determined to remain silent, put the
discussion has reached that point Wnere
am compelled in simple justice to give eX-
preston to my views
In no spirit of animosity to any one is
th,s written. 1t will be remembered that
at the beginning of the campaign ana
several times since Mr.. Query addressed
nolIte notes 70 Mr. Terrell asking MIN 10
meet him and jointly discuss the ISSUES
of the campaign before the people so they
might make a fair and Impartial Ve1uIo,.
AS 1 remember. a similar propositloh was
admitted TO Mr. Hill. Each OF these chal-
lenges was promptly declined for the sake
of harmony only. and because they seem
ed TO fear public discussion Woulo leau -
personalities, which they were apparently
anxious to avoid. Yet we nave
known a more personal campaign. MT
Terrell. in his speeches asserts that MI.
Guerrv is a hypocrite and a slahoeIeI
seeking to traduce him, while ms lIlel e,
are none the less severe in their demurrer
alton of Mr.. Guerry. If by refusing JOINT
debate Mr. Terrell and his Irlehos hdNe
avoided what they regard as personalities
then Cod snare the day when personah-
&C. shoI enter Georgia politics. If 1t be
true that Mr. Query is the whited sepul-
cher they charge him with being-slInply
capxrassinR the state to strike down tue
character of good men-would 1t not De
more manly for Mr.. Terrell to meet MN
face 10 face and expose him. Inc peo-
pie are not fools, and they mean 70 -
inst So If Mr.. Query is a slanderer anu
q hvpocrite. Mr.. Terrell ought to meet
him face to face and establish the 1acL-
what are some of the charges mace
against Mr.. Terrell that are slandersE one
Is that he is backed by and IN sympathy
with the whisky men of Georgia. is II hot
true tint this class is supporting MIN al
$50. 80 man even though Mr.. Estill
has said he was opposed to state prohlDl-
ton? Does not Mr.. Terrell believe IN the
doctrine that "to the victor belongs the
spoils?'' Is he not preaching that the
greatest sin, politically, is ingrautuoe' anu
that he will stand by those VINO viii s .l-
by him, and in advance extending 20 'iI p-is
the entire of the executive mansion anu
oface7 Now If he is sincere, ne VIII DC
forced 10 recognize the wishes OF those
summarizing him, and II he is not IN sym
nathv with the whisky men, IL Is niue
strange that they should be SO much ~
sympathy with him and giving nm an al
most unanimous support ~
NV What else has been done bX MT.
Guerrv 40 nnisrepresent Mr.. Terrell IN MS
prohibition record? 1t is alleged that WINE
n the senate In 1891 Mr.. Terrell voted
against what is known as the three-mne
limit law, which was Dill TO proniDil
the sale of whisky in the country withih
three miles of a church or scnool. Dla ~
not offer various amendments to TINS OIL
seeking 70 nulify II as alleged, ana Wnen
thew were rejected by the senate, ala ne
not vote against the bill on its merits.
Examine senate journal OF 1871, pages =
TO 7s and tell us IL this IS not true, or
whether H. H. Cabaniss and William dar-
a Of Worth. who were then the secretary
Of the senate. Ial~
sI6ed the record in order that this vile
slanderer. Dupont Guerry, might eleven
Years after have a falsehood to circulate
AGAINST Mr. Terrell. Z ne law says the
journal shall be conclusive as 10 Wnat -
done in the house or senate. Accepting Il
as such. then in 1891. while In the senate
Mr. Terrell was throwing his vote ana IN
fuence toward protecting the liquor inter-
eats even at the expense of our churcnes
and schools. the two most powerful rae
tors for good I'm our civilization, ana thls
Notwithstanding the oft repeated deelara-
tion Of Mr. Terrell and his friends that
he has always voted and worked ior pro-
hibition.
IN show Mr.. Query to be a hypocrite?
one is that up to 1896 he was a local OPP
tionist Granted. But prohibition Is
matter of growth, and there are TO-DAY
thousands favoring 1t who Few years ago
opposed 1t in any form. Great anxiety
seems TO prevail in certain quarters for
Saer AZ state prohibition is ever enacted
there will become a reverse of sentiment
that will in a few years give US bar rooms
in the counties now dry. / must confess
to a feeling of amusement at these appre-
tensions. Who are the men apparently
so soncitous for prohibition? First, the
LIQUOR dealers. Second, the politicians
seeking to perpetuate ring rule. Third,
Inc dfcnnn Tfpg OnDOGtnU
prohibition in any form. 1t is alleged Mr..
Query has recently changed from local
option to state prohibition to catch the
prohibition vote. This charge can only be
made through ignorance or desire TO
misrepresent. In 1888, Hon. J. i. Castle
berry and 1 had the honor to represent
Monroe county in the legislature. At that
time 1 introduced what was known as a
general state prohibition bill. Mr.. Guer-
~ was no candidate, nor had he so far
as / know ever thought of becoming one.
Being recognized as one who had given
the subject great study, and one in whom
every one had confidence. he was by the
unanimous action of the legislature in
vited to address them on the question of
prohibition. He came to Atlanta at his
own expense and did so. In that speech
he took issue squarely in favor of state
prohibition, announcing, however, that he
had but recently become a convert to it
that he had become a convert because al
ter mature study he was satisfied that in
the city counties by appeals to the ignor-
ant and purchasable vote, whisky could
always be retained in those counties under
local option, and that the total abolition
OF the bar room in Georgia could never
be accomplished except through state pro-
hibition. The members of the general as
sembly who at that time heard his matcn-
less oratory and logic will, I am sure,
agree with me that to him is due much of
the credit for the passage of that bill by
the house When the bill reached the SEN
ate it met fierce opposition froxs Nr. Ter
relPs brother, who now vouches Tor Mr..
Terrelps consistency as a prohibitionist.
At that time the life of the bar rooms in
Georgia was trembling in the balance.
Where was Roderick then?
One blast of his bugle horn were worth a
thousand men,"
Yet, no word In behalf of the bill was
ever uttered by the great disciple of pro-
hibition. 1t was generally understood he
was against state prohibition. This he
now declares to be true. He says he can
not favor state prohibition because he
believes 1t would be unwise and eventually
bring whisky back in the dry counties. and
the principle lies too near his heart to take
any such chance-still If elected governor,
he will approve a bill of this character. If
his convictions are honest, his logic is
poor. As a consistent prOhibitionist the
only manly thing left for him to do would
be to veto such a measure.