The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1907-1917, 1910-05-19

sons 2nonoeGaGte congressman and personal
friend q0erot to Macon, and the other places
stated, and began has disparagirag speeches
concerning "z'he sage of McDu19e'', to achoma
he could not ascrlbe common honesty IN his
choice Of candidates IN the gatbe7matoq-iaz
race.
Again, upon what theory does Mr.. Hard
wick defend his desertion of Congress when
an open session is on? That's has place of
duty. He voted himself an increase of fifty
per cent. In salary, and he now draws $4,000
for doing about nine months work. How
cam he perform his duty and earn his Sazory
wozess he stays on the jo62 He defends him
self by saying that he is 'paired" with Re
publican. II that is equivalent to being in
his seat ready to make motions, speeches and
deliver votes, a0hy IS he needed there, at azz?
Why couldn't his secretary arrange "pair'',
and thus save us the enormous expense of
having more than hundred and sixty of
these Democratic Congressman drawing their
$4,000 for nine months work? IF he can
safely absent himself one week after having
"palred' with Republican, what damage
would two weeks absence on such "pair"
do? Or three weeks? Or any other number
of weeks? 1t Is simply outrageous for him
to put his personal interests above those of
has constituents, as he has been doi71g He is
paid to work in Congress, and he is neglect
ing that work, while his salary runs right
on, In order that he may come into the Tenth
District and save himself from retirement.
He has served long enough in Congress for
his record to be the most eloquent champion
in favor of a reelection IF he has no record.
he is not entitled to another term.
When Watson was in Congress, he was as
sailed by all the Hardwicks, the Boyzin
Wrights and the Bill Flemings, and he new
er budged one step from Congress, until the
Adjournment, IN midsummer. He knew that
his record was speaking for him. He knew
that the people would keep minds open until
he could come and be heard in his own de-
fence. He lost nothing by remaining at the
post OF duty, working zealously for his peo-
pie, while his enemies were assailing him
from one end of the State to the other
If Mr.. Hardwick had been working with
equal fidelity for his constituents there
would be the record, fighting his battle for
HIM IN his absence, and neither Eve, nor
Evans, nor Watson, nor any other person,
could do him the slightest harm.
By implication Mr.. Hardwick, at Louis
vile, accused Watson of being a liar. That's
the fashionable thing to do, in certain quar-
tiers. He read a complimentary editorial
which was in The JEFFERsoNIAN few years
ago, and asked his audience, "Did Watson lie,
them" The necessary implication was that
Watson either lied, then, or is lying, noaO.
There was no lie told SO far as Watson knew,
in giving credit to Hardwick for his part in
passing the disfranchisement law. There
was no lie told in the editorial of August,
1907, in which Watson stated that Hardwicz
was "a Democrat q0ith q zttze d, as a0iW be
found By reference to the Congressional Bee
ord". This simply meant that his votes had
been straight. That was the truth. But it
was not stated that he had accomplished any