The Jimplecute. (Jefferson, Tex.) 18??-1907, 1905-11-04
zssssssssssssssssssssS
{ v. c. I. j. COLUMN. );
"Ss Edited BY MRS. H. A. Benefited. e

!
Mrs. Hughes, w. G. T. U, Press
Supt. of Atlanta, sent us letter
from Hon. D. B. Culberson, half
of which we give this week-will
be continued next week.
HON. DAVE cuLBERsoN WITH PROHIBITION,
Jefferson, Tex, April 10, 1887.
Messrs. Barnett Gibbs, r. II. Harri-
son, w. B. Page, Walter Gresham, J.
H, Copeland, Dallas:
Gentlemen:-I am in receipt of your
favor of the 4th inst, and regret that
my engagements have not permitted
an earlier reply.
You call my attention to the fact
that largely attended meeting of
prominent Democrats" from all parts
of the State was held at Austin on the
30ult., for the purpose of calling State
convention to meet in Dallas ON the list
Monday in May. I am also advised
by your Communication, that such
convention had been called, and that
the purpose of this movement was to
declare:
"ist. The time honored and cardinal
principle of the Democratic party from
Jefferson, it's founder, down to the
time. viz: Opposition to all forms of
sumptuary legislation. End. To set on
foot vigorous and we'll organized cam
paign against the proposed constitu-
tional amendment" You invite me to
attend address the convention. l am
very greatly obliged by the honor of
the invitation, put am not in accord
with the objects of the proposed con-
vention and, therefore, deem it neces-
sary to decline the invitation.
might close this reply here, but my
respect for the high charater of each
member OF the comittee leads to sub
nit. with great Difference. the following
i observations:
AS I understand, from your commun-
ication, the controlling object of the
proposed convention is to denounce
prohibition ais undemocratic and viola
tive of cardinal principle of the Dem
ocratic party. This movement seems to
me to be revolt against the will of the
Democratic party. and deliberate eff.
fort to drag the party into a partizan
conflict upon question which has been
declared by the party in convention tc
be non-partizan and non-political.
am aware Of the fact that there is ar
apparent variance between the form o.
the question ~ considered by the con
vention and the amendment proposed
but all must agree that the convention
intended to cover the question as now
represented.
The Democratic State administration
which submitted the proposition, re
garded it as non-partizan and non-po
litical. The legislature, carrying ou
the will of the party as expressed il
convention, submitted the proposition
for the action of the people at tim
when it was supposed the public mine
would be free from the influence of par
tizanship and unswayed by the claim
arising out OF party service of aspirant
for Office. There was manifest diff
ference of opinion upon the question o
prohibition prevailing among Demo
Gratis and, whether wisely or unwisely
the party had deemed it best, to eimi
nate the question from party politics
The object, doubtless, was to presen
an opportunity to test the strength c
prohibition without the loyalty to pan
ty. The objects of the proposed con
vention, as stated by you, are, in m
opinion, wholly at variance with tn
will and object of the party and, there
fore. do not perceive how any Demo
crat, who recognises the duty of W
holding and abiding by the will of tn
, party, can consistently participate i
n such movement. think the unwil
dom of this proposed action is not COL
- fined within the narrow limits of part
J. expediency OF discipline, but it cover
i much widsr field. If the propose
g conventisa shall declare, as its promo
q tiers expect, that prohibition is unden
ocratic and violstive of cardinal prir
ciple of Democratic faith, it will al
nounce proposition which cannot /
= sustained either upon principle or b
r. authrity. The eIil influence, Their
d fore, Of tk% proposed convention wi
is not stop With the blow inflicted upo
% the established usage and discipline
the party, but will tend to array Dem