The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1905-02-07
Tuesday February 7. 1861
JUST A REMINDER"

Under the above headin. the Rail-
aigh Post of yesterday quotes an edi-
torial paragraph from The Messenger
Of Wednesday last in reference to the
legislature ignoring the fact that ths1
Watts law had been incorporated in
the platform of the democratic party
Of the state and says:
The Wilmington Messenger speaks
out in meeting when 1t says:
This legislature seems to have for
gotten entirely that the Watts law
formed a plank in the last 0emocratic
state platform. We thought the party
bad in that convention agreed to
stand by the law as a party principle.
The democrats of the legislature haveI
repudiated the principles Of that law
in the Richmond county and the Ashe-f
vile bills as squarely as if they hadl
passed a law providing for the rum
ming of saloons in towns which had by
popular vote declared for prohibitionI
in their limits. Nc n can truthfullyI
deny his proposition. The Watts law
seems to give all the sauce to the
goose. but none to the g%ander.'
It is not best for the temperance
cause, nor for the democratic party,
in our opinion, to show too much in
dependence and disregard of the plat
form provisions and pledges Of the
varty. It's too much in the nature of
an acknowledgement that platforms
are only made to get in on, INT Will
serve to prevent the future acceptanceI
Of party platform declarations in good
faith. If the Watts law means any,
thing, stand by it and enforce 1T, de-
fend it and depend upon it. If it Isl
not the thing, after a fair trial, re-
peal it and put every case on trial on
its merits.
1t does seem to us that the party as
represented by it's legislators now in
session in Raleigh should be more
consistent. The party leaders should
not repudiate the principles Of the
next breath charge those who do not
wish to stand by all the provisions OF
that act as being traitors to the party.
Either accept the Watts law in its en-
tirety as a fundamental principle Of
the party or consider none Of its pro-
visions as such and leave every demo-
crat 70 take whatever position on this
question that suits him. If the Watts
law is binding in one direction on all
democrats it should be binding on
their consciences as members Of that
party in all others.
IF it is wrong to evade the Watts
law by Incorporating as a town one
distilIery SO as to TAX it out Of the
operations of the act it is wrong to SO
incorporate another.
If 1t is proper to grant to the citi-
zens of the several counties, townships,
cities and towns of the state the sole
right to determine whether liquors
should be manufactured or sold in
their midst it is not just and fair to
take this right from this or that town
or county or township just because it
is feared by the legislative body that
h people within those boundaries
would by popular ballot decide the
question a~ntagonistic to the views of a
majority of the legislative body.
We are not arguing in favor OF one
side or the other in this case, but on
the broad question Of the principle in
volved. If the Watts law, passed fol-
the entire people of the state, was a
good measure for the hole state, am
the democratic party by its platform
has pledged itself to stand by that bill
which gives to the people of any town
or community the right by ballot te
settle this question for themselves
then we say a democratic legislature
has not the right to pass an act pro.
hibiting the sale or manufacture OF
liquor in any town where it is nov
permitted nor has it the right to per
init such manufacture or traffic in &
town or community where such ha:
been forbidden by the vote of ths
people.
The Duplin Journal very PERTINENT!
asks: IF Judges are to be paid mort