The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1907-10-17
SHEATH FALS|F|ES HIS
RECORD ON MACHINE
BILLS Of 1903 SESSION
He Voted for the Susquehanna
Canal Bill Notwithstanding
His Denial of the Fact.
T. 'iad Record Made Worse by Add
.ag Falsehood to Recreancy.-
Democratic Campaign In Full
sway and Lively Times Expected
in the Near Future.
Especial Correspondence)
Harrisburg, Pa, Oct. l

Some days ago the Phlladelpnla
Record copied from leaflet issued
BY the Democratic State Committee
4 paragraph in reference to the
bills introduced into the Legislature
Of the State creating new water
companies with vast powers and in
the already dangerous pow
ers OF some OF the old companies. !"
The statement added that Mr.. Sheatz,
the machine Republican candidate
for State Treasurer, had supported
these bills ana that the most afro
cious of all these iniQuities was
known as the Kingston bill. 1t was
among those which were stricken
from the calendar of the Senate on
the last day of the session for the
reason that Pennypacker, weak as
be was, threatened to veto them Il
passed.
The Philadelphia Record of Tues
day, Octo ber Sth, contains this com
or denial:
Under ordinary circumstan-
ces ] would not reply to cam
puiSh llLSl dluIe, dS the general
public, from long experience, has
little time for, and much less in
clination to believe the extrava-
gant writings, and in many cases
absolutely false statements, of
men employed for their ability
in that line; but as you lay such
stress on the so-called Water
Snake bills, feel that l must
make reply to you, although
knowing that the people have
not forgotten.
You say in your news col
umns and editorially that | vot-
ed for the infamous Sus-
quehanna Canal bill. VIII
you please look in "The
Record" or any of the Phila-
delphia newspapers published
under date of March IS, 1903,
and note the vote-170 to l.
he mo- coming from Repre-
sentative Sheath, of West Phila-
delphia.
AT that time all the leading
newspapers throughout Pennsyl-
vania commented most favor
ably on my stand. l not only
voted against, but worked a.
gainst the bills.
There Is proverb that a guilty
needs no accuser" and It
s completely exemplifed In Mr..
3heatz's action. He had not been
accused of voting for the Susque-
hanna Canal bill but specifically de-
,lares that he didn't. The denial OF
his vote for the Kingston bill is only
nferential. That is, he says that
ne mot only voted against, but
worked against the bills, note the
plural. AS matter of fact he voted
Tor both the Kingston water snake
and the Susquehanna canal bill. The
Canal Bill wasn't classed among the
water snakes" at any time. 1t was
simply a repeal of the charter Of
the Susquehanna Canal, which had
been abandoned years ago. and Of
that class Of legislation which the
ate Mr.. Josephs used to characterize
as "a little thing for Poor Ped"
There wasn't even the suspicion Of
bribery in connection with Its con-
though a bitter opposi-
ton to the measure was developed
In some way and for some purpose.
The Record Contradicts Sheath.
Mr.. Sheath having magnified q
mole hill into a mountain, however,
bis denial becomes important and
the funny Incidents relating to 1t
Interesting. For example the afro
cious North American butted into
the affairs the day after the publ
cation of Sheatz's denial with this
absurd editorial:
It should be stated further
that Mr., Sheath took special
pains to vote right on the Sus-
quehanna snake" While In
Philadelphia the day before the
bill came up he inquired OF The
North American when 1t was to
be called. Upon learning that
the vote would be taken the fol-
lowing day, he Cancelled an i'm
portant business engagement,
and went to Harrisburg specially
to do his duty and vote against
Inc measure.
Now for the facts. The measure,
House bill No. 279, was reported
from the Committee on Municipal
Corporations by Mr., Call of Phila-
telphia, March 4.-Legislative Rec
ord, 1903, page 1892, It passed
nrst reading on March 5.-Legisla-
live Record, 1903, page 1904. 1t was
read the second time "and agreed
TO-" ON March 0.-Legislative Rec
ord, 1908, page 1870. 1t was taken
up in It's order for third reading on
March IL and defeated for final
passage on the same day.-Legisla-
tive Record, 1908, page 1920, the
hayes being 70 and the ayes 40. Mr..
Sheath voted against the bill but not
alone, as he states. There were 80
others on that occasion.
On March 17th Mr. Shern of
Philadelphia moved to reconsider
the vote by which House bill No.
279, file folio 939, was defeated on
final passage" The motion was
seconded by Mr.. Samuel Ripp of
and prevailed. .-Legls-
latiye Record, 1908, page 1890. OBJ
yiously the machine needed that bill