The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1910-12-02
NV CHARLES M. ELDERDICE
cprs AFTER WIN. ANDERSON.

rourse of His Party iR the Last
Compaign and Resents Charges
Made BY the Superintendent of the
AntiIiquor League.
10 the Editor Under the mis-
leading caption, Repudlated Dy
Thsir own Followers" MIR. VIM. Il.
1nJerson, in the last issue OF the
anti-Saloon Leagues official organ.
n,atos a savage attack upon the pro-
pihition party of this state, and its
nnner the Battle Cry" Both because
pom pm a Prohibitionist and have the
NOR of being the founder and the
aUst editor Of the Battle Cry, feel
innelled to take up my pen once more
~ defense OF my party, and let my
nol;tical comrades know by this token
hot there is left at least one man in
WorvIand who has not "repudiated'
them or their action.
Mr. Anderson, with a suspicious
ooqerness, pounceS upon and publish
"a at the beginning Of his article the
folloWing communication to The
American from Eugene Tucker, of
hartford county
"The Prohibition party I'm the Sec
and district ia doing Its utmost to
elect Talbot and continue the reign
M Talbottism. 1t Is doing everything
n its power against the progress of
the reform it processes to advocate.
Behind the mask OF Gilbert and Pro-
hfbition it is serving the cause of
Talbott and rum. AS a Prohibitionist,
7 refuse to be a party to such q COM
pact"
As to the communication itself, 1t is
eo absurdly false that the wonder Is
Mr. Anderson's lack of tact in reprint
ing it, for certainly II does his cause
NO good. The statement that "the
prohibition party in the Second dis
trict is doing it's utmost to elect Mr..
Talbot" is an unqualified falsehood.
Mr.. Tucker, L am convinced, knew II
TO be unfair and untrue when he
wrote it, and MIR. Anderson certainly
knew it to be the same when he dis
played it on the first page OF the
American Issue. Why, then, did he
make use of 1t? Mr.. Anderson de-
clares that this is just sample Of
private letters which we have re-
ceived and statements which have
been made" If so, then why were
not some of them published in place
Of this one ? Probably because, as he
says, this one Is sample" Of the
others and one such editorial blunder
Ia enough for even the Issue.
But there is another side to this
question. The league liz also being
severely criticised by its real friends
for its activity in behalf of MIR.
Baker and for Its continued abuse of
the Prohibition party. One OF the
most prominent Methodist ministers
Of Baltimore said to me not long ago.
Anderson Is making a serious mis-
take and Is injuring his cause by at
lacking the Prohibition party in the
Second district" A. citizen of Har-
ford county said in recent CONVEX
,ation "Anderson's activity in be-
half of Baker defeated him for state
senate last year and will defeat him
Tor congress this year." Had T the
lime and space could quote from
etters and statements also, showing
hat this Reputation" business isn't
all on one side, and they would hear
/ great deal more resemblance to
ruth than the quotation from the
Hartford county Methodist minister"
Ind successful business man."
The Prohibition party had a candi-
late in the Second district two years
lgo, and no one accused us then of
rying to elect Talbot, and yet many
'egard Robert Garrett as clean and
a man as Mr.. Baker. Why
10 much frothing Ut the mouth this
rear ? For that matter, why should
he presence of the Prohibition party
n the field interfere with the chances
If Mr.. Bakers election any more than
with Mr. Talbott's i? The Prohibition
party was recruited from both the
and Democratic parties.
Certain slurring references have been
made to the fact that the convention
which nominated Mr.. Gilbert was not
held in the Second district. / would
ike to ask where MIR. Baker was
nominated Mr.. Baker, Mr.. Dryden,
Mr.. Covington and Mr.. Talbot, il /
rightly, were all nominated
by party caucases in Baltimore
city, outside of their own districts.
Why has not the Prohibition party the
same right In fact, our nomina-
ions were made by called conven-
ions.
Mr.. Anderson states that there Is
no provision in the Maryland law by
which the people OF the state can ex-
press themselves effectively against
The liquor traffic" Is there any pro-
vision in the Maryland law by which
he people can express themselves
against high tariff =? No more than
here is regarding the liquor traffic.
And yet the people of Maryland, and,
indeed, OF the country at large, did
express themselves upon the subject
very effectively by overthrowing the
administration and elect
ing a big Democratic majority to the
House of Representatives. And why
lid they do this Because they knew
The Democratic party was pledged to
the policy of low tariff, and by elect
ng a Democratic Congress they would
assure a downward revision OF the
rates. Suppose they had waited for
4 local option law to be passed, CIV
ing them the right to vote for high or
ow tariff, without regard to parties
What il the people had decided to set
lie this matter in a nonpartisan man
1er Why, it would be settled like
he prohibition question has been set
led in this state. Well, the Repub-
lean party in Maryland was not de-
,lared for prohibition. The Demo-
cratic party in spite of its pet war
Try, Shall the people rule ?" refuses
to give them the right to vote for or
against license as a separate issue.
The Prohibition party, on the other
hand, stands pledged to pass a state
law for Maryland, If
elected to power. How, then may the