The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-03-24
Editor Bailey Replies to Sen. Norris.

subject or ms record. / am teIldlhiJ
not disposed to defend myself against
his insane and low attacks. And though
am tempted by his parading of himself
as buzz saw, rather than a rooster,
shall pass that by. If he thinks he is
q buzz-saw, no one should object. 1t IS
ouite 4 harmless deIusion. The buzzing-
iudping from the Senator's article-might
go on thousand years without helping
his record as Senator. If he thinks it
will hc!3 his record to attack another
mars character or record, l have no
care to relieve him of the delusioE.
have heard of politicians who found
saving wood and saying nothing to their
advantage. But the Senator evidently
nrIdes himself upon his industry in saw
inc unon Mr.. Broughtons record, and IL
saving nothing about one part of his own
and = great deal about another part
will let the Senator stand as a buzz
cav since ne wishes to be regarded rs
one. Let him buzz If the public can
stand the monotonous drone of his let
tiers. l am sure / can.
Rut 7 wish to point out that the Sen
ator has not dared deny my charge. de
has "buzzed" a good deal, but he has not
denied my charge. / charged him Wlth
voting on both sides of the temperance
ouestion-both for and against. He is IN
inst this position: He can tell ten
nerance man that he voted for the Watts
bill. He can tell a saloon man or dis
tiller that he voted against the Watts
bill. And he will tell the truth-half to
one and half to the other, making q
whole at length.
Moreover, I will quote the Senator
own statement of his record to prove
nv charge. His statement does not dis
agree with mine. l will first produce
nv peter Plain" statement of his
record-the statement that he protested
against in the Senate, and that this dis
cussion is based upon. I will then pro
duce a statement of his RECORD, approved
hy himself. And if the statement of his
record as approved by himself does not
confirm my original statement of his
record, | will give up my contention and
make him a public apology. On the other
hand. if l show that my statement OF
his record is confirmed by his own
statement l think he should hand down
decision in my favor from the buzz-saw
court that he has established, in which
he has played attorney and judge and
also spokesman of the jury, and in
which instead of trying himself he has
attempted to try Mr.. Broughton and my
self
Here is my original charge as found
in the columns of my paper:
"Mr. Norris was on the affirmative and
negative side of all the phases of the
complicated temperance question, and
never faltered He was in favor
Ct the Vann substitute, the bill to let
each Senator put his county under con-
di5ions called for in the London bill
barring the fifth section. He offered an
amendment putting Wake under these
conditions. lie was for the London bill
so he said-minus the fifth section
When the Watts bill came into the SEN
ate he Withdrew his Wake county amerG-
ment. and announced that he would sup
port the Watts bill But when an
amendment was offered allowing counties
to be exempted from this bill-an amend
ment that would destroy 1.-THE was for
that"
This is my statement of his record
Now let US see his own statement of his
record.
In the Sundays News and Observer we
have friendly sketches of the members
of the General Assembly In these
sketches are statements of the records
of the gentlemen. 1t is clear that these
statements We're approved by the gentle
nen themselves and based upon infor-
nation given by the gentlemen Such
Information could come in no other way.
In the sketch of Senator Norris We find
the following:
ION the temperance question, Senator
Norris was conservative He was OPP
posed to committing his party and State
to prohibition; yet, was in favor of re-
strictiye and local option laws, and in
favor of prohibiting the manufacture
ana sale of wEiskey in the country, ex-
cept where Senators desired their
counties exempt" This is the secret Of
the matter. Tais exception would have
nullifed the entire law. 1t would have
Hrought the legislation right back to the
Fann- Warren substitute, that was in
troduced to defeat the London and
Watts bills. The statement goes on
He voted for all temperance bills ex-
ceEt the London bill''-except, of course,
where Senators desired their counties
exempt He voted "for the Watts bill"
except, of course, where Senators de-
Slftu lHtIT counties exempt. That -, he
was n favor of these bills ard also in
favor O. their notification.
The Senator was for temperance. where
there were temperance Senator's, for
saloons where there were Senators that
favored saloons. He was as | said on
all 'leb of the question. His record as
recorded en- the Senate Journal. which
any one may consult. corresponds with
mya statement. His own approved state
III 7nt a. above-vares in no particular
FROM - statement, save in il effort %
Tut a good face on it, His repeated
statement that he voted s5- the Watts
bill should be taken with his statement
that he voted to EXEMPT counties whose
Senators desired exemption.
And yet the Senator arose to q ques-
ton of privilege and has wri "a several
letters. Just why, l cannot see. He has
denied nothing. He pleads guilty He
cannot extricate himself and he buzzes
more like helpless fly on fly-paper than
like "a buzz-saw.
have not criticised the Senator for
voting against us, Some of the best men