Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1902-02-06

Editor Journal
1 notice your paragraphs in which you
say or imply that 1 have accused Mr..
Terrell of stealing or plagairiZing my
platform. This is all very funny, and
have no objection to your further indul-
gence in it, provided you will allow me to
make a disclaimer of ever having used
such language or INDUCED in any insinu-
alton to such effect. What / said on this
subject was in a written interview pub
lished in your paper on the 2Sd instant
and is as follows:
IT have very little to say about Mr.. Ter
relrs address now. AS far as it goes, it is
graceful advocacy of what have been
| urging in public speeches and public let
| tiers for some months. / have no patent on
my platform. shall continue to stand on
1t, but will be ready at all times to share
| IT literally with my opponents. Neither or
| them can ask more.
THE drift among the masses has been
| for some time in favor of the causes /
have been advocating, and Mr.. Terrelrs
progress in that direction is overwhelm-
| ing confirmation"
This is not only what have said in your
paper, but it is the substance of all that
have said on the subject elsewhere or
| otherwise.
notice that l.: your paper and a large
number of other papers 1t is either stated
! or implied that there is now no difference
between MT. 1eTTcll pOSlllOn anu my
own on the questions involved. This is a
| manifest error. have not only announced
| in writing and otherwise in favor of state
prohibition, but have been contending for
1t ever since became a candidate and
announced in favor of it, in fact, in card
/ to The Sentinel several months before
| became a candidate. Ever since l have
been active in the campaign l have been
advocating 1t in my speeches and in my
| communications. During all this time /
have been not only seeking my own nonli-
/ nation, but arguing in favor of candidates
| for the Legislature who are in favor of
state prohibition. 1t is my purpose in the
event Of my election to urge the passage
of such a law; and should l be elected, the
| people of Georgia will have decided, in
| electing me, in favor of state prohibition,
| and their decision would, of course. have
| a powerful moral effect in securing the
| passage of such a law. Should be elected
and should such a law be passed, 1 will
not only sign it, but in making appoint
| ments of judges and solicitors Of city and
| county courts. who are principally charg-
| ed with the enforcement Of such law,
| shall make it point to select men whose
\ views will not be so unfriendly to the law
as to sdisincline them to seek its enforce
ment to the same extent that they would
\ feel bound to enforce other penal laws.
| Mr.. Terrell does not declare in favor of
| state prohibition, but 1t is clearly infera-
! BILE. especially when his position on the
| subject heretofore is considered that he
is opposed to state prohibition. He does
not say he would sign a state prohibition
bill. He simply says, II recognize the right
of the people. If it is their will, to go fur
Their and prohibit sales within the limit of
the state. Should they do so. no governor
| elected by their votes could consistently
use the veto power to render their VIII
nugatory. 1 would not" He really says
nothing about a state prohibition bill at
| all.
In effect, he makes no concession what
| ever.
i If the people who are supporting him
| succeed, they will elect majority OF the
senate or the house or both, and Mr.. Ter
reI will never be called upon to redeem
his pledge.
I know that there are some prohibition
| lists who are also pToclaiming that there
is no difference between Mr.. Terrell and
myself upon the question of prohibition,
but the distillers and brewers and liquor
dealers seem to understand the situation
very differently. So far as my information
extends they are not dividing up at all,
but are still solid for Mr.. Terrell. My in
| formation is that this is practically true
In the county of Chatham. although Mr..
EstiIl, the candidate of that county. has
declared his opposition to state prohihi.
ton.
LOBBYIsM.
Please excuse me for calling your at
| tention to some other differences in our
| platforms which seem to have escaped
! observation. Mr.. Terrell says nothing
about lobbyism. Is he ignorant of 1t?
Certainly he does not approve of 1t. Ger
tainly it exists Nobody denies it. There
| is some difference as to the extent and eff
| feet of it, but it's apologists are not out
spoken in its defense.
| TAXATION.
| Mr. Terrell does take the same position
as to the taxation of public utility fran
| chises that 1 took and argued in my
! speeches in August last, quoting decis-
| ions at that time of the supreme court of
the United States in favor of its legality
| and righteousness. My position on this
| subject however, is not only that such
action should be taken as far as neces-
| sary to compel the just taxation of such
| franchises, bus that they are taxable I'M
| der the law as it now stands; and in sup