The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1908-06-12

| those who elect him, and must be
grateful to them" Without saving SO
in words, the only logical deduction
from the above remarkable code Of
morals which the clerical alliance
enunciate is that if General Gilchrist
against whose character they saw not
word, is elected by the influence Of
the saloon interest, in grateful recog-
milton Of such support he should pros
utute hi singh Office to reward them.
| do not subscribe to such ethics.
No matter by whom one is elected, if
he be an honest man, as know Cen
eral Gilchrist to be, he will not use
his office improperly in the interest of
his supporters, whoever they NAV Oe.
But let us see, in the light of the
last primary whether it is true that
the large vote of General Gilchrist is
due principally to the support of the
saloon interests. OF the dry counties
| Gilchrist carried IS and Stockton L.
Was the saloon interest sufficient 10
carry the counties for Gilchrist in
| which there were no saloons? Stock
ton carried three of the nine wet cOln-
ties. How do they account for that
on the saloon interest theory? While
Gilchrist led Stockton in Monroe.
wet county, he only got 217 votes. as
against $50 cast for the two prohibi-
ton candidates.
! DO not know how many saloon
keepers there are in the state: be
lieve 800 is full estimate Many Or
the saloon keepers are men of but lii
tie influence. Is ii to that small class
that General Gilchrist owes his great
vote Of 23248?-nearly one-half Of
the entire primary vote. Such a claim
by the clerical alliance is not only alb
surd but an insult to the intelligence
and honesty of the democrats of the
state, and shows their utter ignor-
ance of the political situation into
which they have so recklessly thrust
themselves.
One of this clerical alliance, Rev. J.
w. Bigham, who, | am informed. is
recent importation from Kentucky, not
satisfied with joining his brethren in
their written appeal to the people, has
seen fit TO take the stump for his can
didate, Mr. Stockton, and is reported
to have said in reference to Dual
county, Gen. Gilchrist carried that
county by the vote of the saloon
buns, those who Tapped the filth from
the gutter, and by grafters." IN
which of these classes does he place
the large number Of Christian gen
tlemen of his own congregation, and
of the congregations of his Other
brother pastors, who voted for Gil
christ?
In the first primary of 1904, which
Mr.. Stockton ran against Senator
Taliaferro for the United States SEN
ate, TaliaferrO received in Duval'
county 1105 more votes than Stock
ton. There was no suggestion of a
liquor question in that campaign, AMI
if there had been there was no reason
why Senator Taliaferro, who for half
century had never drunk liquor,
should have commanded the support
of the liquor element. The proper
tiOnate vote of Gilchrist against Stock
ton in this county at the last primary
was but little in excess of that as
stated in 1904. Why then is this vote
the result Of saloon influence? Judging
by the past, is it not more reasonably
accounted for by the estimate of Mr.
Stockton by the people who knew him
best, have known him for years, and
have not forgotten among other things
his political record in leading an indie
pendent movements against the nom.
inees of the democratic party, in one
of which he secured his election to
the legislature?
The clerical alliance protest that
many of them are neither politicians
nor partisans. By what right, then, !
do they inject themselves into the
partisan primary to control a demo |
cratic nomination? They declare for !
Stockton, a prohibitiOnist Would il !
not be well for them and their candi- |
date, who appear to be so alarmed |
that the saloon influence will seize |
control of the state government ID
connect themselves with the prohibit |
ton party, which l am informed has /
an organization in this state, instead |
of trying to inject into this democrat |
ic primary the forced issue of prohibit
ton, which can only be effected by a
constitutional amendment as to which !
the governor has not even the veto
pOwer?-Francis P. Fleming, in the
Times-UniOn.