Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1902-05-08

of Georgia to read 1t, because IL shows
on the occasion referred to. that I was
not only not attacking the principle of To-
cal option prohibition, but that on the
contrary 1 was advocating II and that /
succeeded at that time in stating with
clearness and precision, that great prin-
cipIe of local option which was finally
adopted by the people Of Georgia IN the
passage of our present local option act in
1885, the same act which Mr.. Terrell voted
for that year among many others who had
since this proposed amendment Of mine
in 1881, become local option prohibitionists.
/ Why did not Mr.. Terrell and Mr.. Hill
publish this? 1t shows more than any
thing else referred to by them or contain
ed in that record. exactly how 1 stood on
the prohibition question at that time and
in relation TO that particular bill, and II
shows, I repeat, that the charges made
by these gentlemen as to my attitude
towards local option. as utterly and man
ifestly untrue.
1t is true that when that amendment
was defeated and the bill came UP for
passage without 1t. ISvoted against the
bill and II was lost for the time being.
This charge, however, that l defeated
<fhe bill is utterly untrue, because the bill
got only nineteen votes. and II I had voted
for it, 1t would still have been defeated
because, under the constitution, % votes
in the senate are required for the passage
of a bill.
a local optionist on the principle that was
adopted in our local option act Of 1885, and
on the principle OF local option as then
and now understood.
I was not at that time IN favor II al
lowing this question to be controlled by
any particular class of our fellow citizens
was not willing to allow it to be left
,lxr 70 he frDahOIdnrS a snRpeEteQ.
Our freeholders were them and are now
among our best citizens. but then as well
as now many Of our best citizens were not
freeholders many Of our minister's or the
gospel, many Of our young men, many OF
our merchants. many of our educators,
many of the other classes Of our citizens
1 am not prepared TO say now, though
I have greatly advanced in my views On
the great question of prohibition, that
would be willing to leave the great que''-
ton to the control of any particular class
OF my white fellow citizens. In such case.
the absence of moral sentiment for the en-
forcement of such prohibition would be
much stronger as am argument sgainsl
prohibition than that being used by Mr..
nm and Mr. Terrell against the great
cause of state prohibition today.
The suggestion of Mr.. Hill that my con-
tention for a majority vote. which is now
the principle of local option, would nave
made It possible for the wishes of the i'm
moral. irresponsible negro voters TO have
outweighed those of white men or women
property owners" is an argument against
the principle of local option which IS
much stronger in favor of state prOhioi-
ton than in favor Of regulation in the
rural districts, through freeholders
For experience has shown that the prin-
ciple Of local option, for which then con-
tended, namely, by majority vote, was
q wise and lust one In so far as our rural
counties as we'll as our rural districts
were concerned, for such local option now
prevails throughout our entire state, ex-
cept in our great city counties ana a Ie"
others.
The real dificulty, so far as this immoral
and irresponsible negro vote is concerned,
exists in our great city counties, where
contend that the great doctrine of state
prohibition should be applied. while
Messrs. Terrell and Hill are contending
to the contrary. insisting as they do upon
the principle of the majority vote In these