The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-03-08
"PETER PLAIN" ON
TEMPERANCE LAW
Sc ,ator Norris Rises TO Qut slion OF Personal
Privilege ard says Editor Josiah William
Bailey Should Discus Religion
and not Politics.

eral Assembly, the Biblical Recorder has
printed every week an article signed
Peter Plain" under the heading Notes
of An On-Looker in the General Assem-
bly," These letters haze been bright and
snapIty, Astounding in sharp criticism
and warm praise of Legislators, admin
istered in accordance with the view
peter Plain" entertained. The letters
were, of course, written by Editor
Bailey. and they have dealt largely with
the temperance legislation proposed or
enacted. In the last issue of the Biblical
Recorder, after discussing the Watts
bill, Peter Plain made the following
criticism of Senator Herbert e. Norris,
of Wake county:
''But l do not sympathize with your
Senator from Wake. He can take care of
HIMSELF l did not know there was such
q master in the county. l have not seen
anything like it since the circus that
kept four performances going at once,
In three rings and platform, went out
of style You remember the Japanese
juggler that kept three knives, pistol,
a bottle of wine, two balls and a basket
of eggs in the air for ten minutes with
out a break? Well listen, Mr.. Norris
was on the affirmative and negative side
OF all the phases of the complicated tenn
perance question, and never faltered. He
was as bland as a brahma rooster. The
history of politics has not known the
equal OF his performance. And yet how
modestly he bears his distinction. lie
does not seem to know that he has
broken all the records. But hear me:
He was in favor of the Vann substitute,
the bill to let each Senator put his coun-
ty under conditions called for in the Lon
don bill barring the fifth section. He
offered an amendment putting Wake
under these conditions. He was for the
London bill-so he said-minus the fifth
section When the Watts bill came into
the Senate he withdrew his Wake county
amendment, and announced that he
would support the Watts bill. But when
an amendment was offered allowing
counties to be exempted from this bill
an amendment that would destroy it
he was for that. The Senator was per-
fectly consistent: He was opposed to the
whole thing ouly wish he had said so.
He said that he was a temperance man,
but wished to go slow and be sure not to
have revulsion. II we do not have
one. we shall vote him thanks When
your crowd get in need of guardian,
Mr. Editor, / commend the Senator from
Wake He is certainly tempcrate-if
not quite prohibitive-in respect to tenn
perance legislation. He will never lead
you into an extreme that will react in
a revulsion or cause the saloon people
to feel badly"
Yesterday morning when the Senate
ID in
of personal privilege, and said
SENATOR NORRIS REPLY TO PETER
PLAIN. ALIAS JOSIAH WILLIAM
BAILEY.
Senator Norris, rising to question of
personal privilege said;
Mr.. President: My attention having
been called to an article in the Biblical
Recorder of the 4th instant, written I'M
der the mon de plume" of Peter Plain,
Whom l believe to be Josiah William
Bailey, editor of said paper, in which at
tempt is made to do me an injustice, as
TO my position and course on the tenn
perance matter recently before this Sen
ate, wish to say: That l have unhesi-
tatingly stated privately and publicly
in the discussion of said matter, in this
Senate, that was opposed to committing
the State and the Democratic party to
prohibition.
First Because the people had not de-
clared in favor of 1.-THE matter not
having been considered or discussed
prior to the recent election.
2. Because prohibition has not been a
success in the States where it has been
adopted; but that | was in favor of
- mr. IN Fa,r1 ,f, rf.ati iva
or local option laws, and would support
all measures in that direction, when a
majority of the people desired same,
That ! was opposed to the London bill
as introduced because it was practically
prohibition BILL but had it's introdueer
or the committee amended the bill by
striking out section five and modified the
wine section by adding brandy, | would
have supported it, with the understand
ing that l would vote to exempt any
county from the operation of same
where the Senator of that county so re-
quested and voted. No amendment as
Indicated having been made or offered.
/ supported the Warren Vann substitute
for the London bill, which was moro in
accordance with my views. When after
wards the Watts bill reached the Senate
from the House of Representatives. and
was offered as a substitute for the Lon
don bill and the Warren-Vann substi-
tute. / supported the same. stating at
the time. publicly. in the Senate that |
would vote to exempt any county desired
by a Senator from the operation of said
Watts bill, and did so vote. My posi-
ton, claim. was entirely consistent.
Peter Plain alias Josiah William Bailey