The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-01
AND SILL ANOTHER CARD.
Senator Norris Seems to Have Contracted the
Controversial Habit.

\
l the controversy between Editor Bailey
| and myself, in which you take no part,
you say: But there is one outside mat
| ter that has been dragged into this con-
| troversy which is calculated to do a
| serious wrong to a good man. We refer
to the impression that Senator Broughton
had some sort of understanding with
the saloon men in 1900 by which
| they supported him for the Senate. There
| is no ground for such belief and Senator
Norris ought not to have intimated that
Mr. Brpughton was governed by any I'm
derstanding This Editor knows that Mr.
Broughton was not candidate of his own
volition in 1900; and that he was
| fought actively by the solid liquor inter-
est of the county; and that neither before
nor after the convention did he have any
agreement or understanding by which any
of them supported him. Some OF his
enemies did spread such report, but 1t
was a grave injustice to a true man who
has never at any time compromised his
temperance and prohibition principles
While there is much truth in the old
saying that politics make strange bed
fellows, yet, / fail to see any good rea-
son why you should volunteer assistance
to Mr.. Broughton by bolstering him with
such broad statements, as quoted above,
and at the same time reprimand me. Mr..
Broughton having taken exceptions to my
calling attention to the fact that the
Editor of the Recorder did not criticise
his record as Senator in 1901, when he did
nothing towards establishing prohibition
for Wake county, you kindly gave him
and myself the use of your columns to
discuss same. l gave in your issue OF
March 21st facts admitted by him, and
those established by the controversy, my
contention and the issues arising there
on, and left the decision Of the matter
with the public Mr.. BroughtOn, / as
sumo, could not disprove my statement
of facts for the reason he has not done
so. Yet you make the broad statement
''that neither before nor after the con-
vention did he have any agreement or
understanding by which any of them
supported him" When, of course, you
could not know anything Mr.. Broughton
may have said or done when not in your
PRESENCE.
Now, that there may be no lodging or
white washing of records, l ask that you
give the public information, if you can,
as to the following matters, since Mr..
Broughton has not done so, to-wit:
!. When MI Broughton said in his
speech accepting nomination (see your
paper June 10, 1900, 1T want to tell you
that l will represent every interest and
every man in Wake county" did that not
include saloon interest and saloon men?
2 If a person agrees to represent an
other, is there not an implied promise
and obligation Tin law and good con-
science) not to injure, but to faithfully
represent and protect said person?
8. When Mr.. Broughton said to men
high in the party's council, who were
talking with him in the interest of the
party and saloon men, that ''in my opin-
ion we are not ready for an undertaking
in either" prohibition or dispensary),
did he not place himself under obligation
not to take such action as Senator?
4. If there was not some promise, or
obligation direct or indirect or by i'm
plication why did not Mr.. Broughton
Claiming to be prohibitonist for more
than twenty years. introduce a bill es-
tablishing prohibition for Wake county,
when he advocated and voted for abso-
lutte prohibition in other counties?
5. Did not the fact of his advocating
and voting for prohibition for other coun-
ties and not for Wake county, show there
was some reason for his not doing so, or
that his course was inconsistent?
6. Did not your paper tissue June 10,
1900, guarantee for him that he would,
as State Senator, be true to the Demo
cratic doctrine to-wit: THAT no legis-
lation shall be enacted bearing on the
whiskey question, without a vote Of the
people. He will be true to that Demo-
cratic principle; and upon that plank all
Democrats can stand"
T. Did he not violate that principle
when he voted for absolute prohibition
for some and dispensaries for other,
counties when Senator in 1901, without
submitting same to vote OF the people?
l think l have shown, conclusiyely, in
my former communications, that Mr..
Broughton was under obligation not to
interfere with the Whiskey interest in
Wake county, while a member of the
Senate in 1901. If he was not under
such obligation, l think, his action was
entirely inconsistent in voting for prohi
bition for other counties, and not for
Wake: and that he failed to do his duty
for the cause of prohibition in Wake
county, And that he also violated the
Democratic principle in voting for abso
lutte prohibition for other counties, with
out leaving it to a vote of the people, |
which your paper said he would not do.
Therefore, l kindly ask that you give
this communication, with your reply, |
prominent space in your paper, and that
you give a candid and full reply to all
matters referred to him. II you can ex-
tricate Mr.. Broughton from his dilemma
| will then admit your statement as to
Mr.. Broughton and reprimand OF myself |
was timely; otherwise l think you should |
withdraw same.
H e. NORRIS.
I'VE greatly fear that Senator Norris |
has contracted the habit of writing con-
troversial cards. IT is a habit that is |
full of danger to one contracting it, but
there has been provided no remedy for |
this dangerous habit. If there was a
Kelley Institute to cure controversialists |
Senator Norris ought to ask to be admitted |
as the first patient. The editor of the
News and Observer does not propose to |
initiate Mr.. Norris in bad habit. Mr.. |
Broughton has in these columns ex-
nj his pCSitiOo is aDundantlV |