The weekly true Democrat., 1908-06-12

large vote OF Gen. Gilchrist is due prin-
cipally to the influence Of the saloon
interests. OF the dry counties Gilchrist
carried 18 and Stockton II. Was the sa-
loon interest sufficient to carry the
the counties for Gilchrist in which
there we're no saloons? Stockton car
ried three Of the nine wet counties.
How do they account for that on the
saloon influence theory? While Gil
christ led Stockton in Monroe, a wet
county, he got only 2l7 votes as against
$50 cast for the two prohibition can
didates.
do not know how many saloon keep
ers there are In the State, believe 500
is a full estimate. Many Of the saloon
keepers are men of but little influence.
Is Il TO that small class that Gen.
Gilchrist owes his great vote 23,24S?
Nearly One-half of the entire primary
vote. Such a claim by the clerical al
lance is not only absurd but an insult
to the intelligence and honesty Of the
Democrats OF the State, and shows
their utter ignorance Of the political
situation into which they have 80 reck-
Iessly thrust themselves.
One OF this clerical alliance, Rev. ].
w. Bigham, who, l am Informed, is
recent importation from Kentucky, not
satisfied with Joining his brethren In
their written appeal to the people, has
seen at to take the stump for his can
didate, Mr.. Stockton, and is reported
10 have said In reference to Duval
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 gentlemen OF his
own congregation and Of the congrega-
tion Of his other brother pastors, who
voted for Gen. Gilchrist.
In the first primary Of 1904, 4,when Mr..
Stockton ran against Senator Talia-
ferro for the United States senate, Tai
ialefro received In Duval county 1,105
more votes than Stockton. There was
no suggestion Of a liquor question In
that campaign, and II there had been
there was no reason why Senator Talia-
ferro. who for half century had never
drank liquor, should have commanded
the support Of the liquor element. The
proportiOnate vote of GilchTist as
against Stockton 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, II is not more reas-
onably 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 In
dependent movements against the nOmi-
nees Of the Democratic party in one Of
which he secured his election to the
legislature
The clerical alliance protest that
uany of them are neither politicians
nor paTtisans. BY what right then do
they inject themselves into the partisan
primary to control a Democratic nOmi-
nation? They declare for Stockton, a
prohibitionist. Would II not be we'll
for them and their candidate, who sp-
pear to be so alarmed that the saloon
influence will seize control of the State
government to connect themselves with
the prohibition party, which / am In
formed has an organization IN this
State. instead Of trying 20 inject into
this Democratic primary the forced Is
sue OF prohibition, which can only be
effected by q constitutional amendment
~ 20 which the Governor has not even
the veto power3
FRANCIS P. FLEMING.
Waolr~a,,,ff1a Ts,,n