West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1909-07-15
Will He Withdraw?

The Argus ought not to take il so hare
because We have asked 10 know its rea
position on the prohibition question. II
set the trap and was caught itself. jour
nal.
The ARGUS has never INDUCED i'm eva
sion and straddling OH the prohibition
question, nor any other question that Ina.
ever been before the people for their an
proval or disapproval, and there is nc
one better acquainted with this fact thar
the editor of the Journal.
During the recent campaign the Journa
made the prohibition amendment tn,
paramount issue and appealed to the cleo
torate TO support the Republican stats
ticket, as it was the only party in favor
oil the amendment. In waxing warm on
this issue those who wore the clerical clotI
were not immune 10 the EDITORS viciou,
attacks. In one issue Of the Journal lac
wrote:
A certain minister of the gospel VIII,
has been infiicting himself on a good peo
pie and misleading them, placed himself
Just where he belongs by supporting the
brewery candidate for governor. What
did it cost? He could have been had by
the Republicans in former campaigns by
paying him a certain price"
THE ARGUS called upon the editor of the
Journal repeatedly 10 name the minister
thus slandered, but he had not the cour-
age 10 do so. His Characterization Of the
Hon. Louis Bennett az "the brewery can
didate" was made without one iota Of
evidence 70 sustain the slanderous charge.
Mr.. Bennett was az free from being "tbe
brewery candidate" a. Mr. Glasscock. and
TIE ARGUS is fair enough 10 say that ii
don't believe Mr.. Glasscock was.
As The ARGUS has many times pointed
out, u stands 10 reason that If the editor
Of the Journal was sincere in his advo-
eacy Of prohibition he could not consist.
emily remain in the ranks Of a political
party which had on two different occa-
sions defeated il. Neither could lie have
consistently opposed the denomination Of
Senator Sam b. Montgomery. for the
senator ardently advocated it on the SEN
ate floor and voted for it. A sinister mo-
tive, or personal Jealousy, must have been
the controlling power with the editor Ina
opposing Montgomery.
Now after all these year, ~ profossed
prohibition sentiment We find the editor
today just a. bitter a partisan and siren
nous q supporter Of the party that twice
defeated the amendment a. be has been
since he became a champion Of that party.
THE ARGUS IL willing 10 submit the
question 10 the iair-minded people Of Pres
ton county 10 decide whether a man can
he sincere in advocating a cause which
the party he supports defeata with i'm.
Punity. Men who would die for a cause
which they honestly believe h b. sacred
and just are made Of sterner stuff than
That which produce. public 0Hice-hoIders.
The only way in which the editor Of the
Journal can prove bis sincerity in tho
Gauss Of prohibition s. by withdraw,pg
his membership in The Republican pary
and denOuncing 10 al straitor b. the cause
which be- ~ earnestly champions. Until
De- does he must mot take umbrava al
THE AEors for calling attention 10 the In.
consistent box in which he has placed
himself. TBE AHoUs has no personal feel.
ine Ia the matter, and in discussing pub
be men and measures IL j. guided by the
sense Of duty which il owes tho people 10
'oc - q that designing men and public |
'ervants DO not abuse TIE trust which tie |
'eople have placed IN their keeping. !