The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1911-09-28
MIR. BULLOCK REPLIES
TO SENATOR CARNEY
Ocala. Fla, Sept. 81, 1911.


TO SENATOR CARNEY
Ocala. Fla, Sept. q, 1911.
Editor Star: Replying to Senator
Carney's article in the Banner. l wish
to state that 1 am very busily engaged
in an effort to make living for a
large family, and have bpt little time
to devote to newspaper controversy
with Senator Carney, who for the past
twenty-five years has done little else
than run for and occupy office, and
while in one public office sought an
other that might chance to be in sight.
A public chronic office seeker, who
must do something in the office seek
ing line ITO make a living" has the
time to parade himself in the news
papers, as we'll as to parade his ignor-
ance of the many matters he attempts
to discuss through them. I have not
such time. AS long as the true author
of the undesirable game law was not
given to the public, l was Informed
that the senator undertook to create
the impression that I was its author.
Now. since it's daddy" has owned the
child, he is attempting to make be-
lieve it is white"
of the simplest rule of grammar could
possibly conStrue my statement that
"I had opposed Senator Carney from
start to finish" as personal antagon-
ism to him. When the senator read
my letter in reply to the letter OF Mr..
McLain's he knew, and he knew when
he wrote the article to which this is a
reply, that this expression referred
70 RI ;s Oh
legislation upon the subject of game
demonstrates the smallness of the man
in his office-seeking methods, and is
la demagogic Misrepresentation of the
first water. People of intelligence
reading between the lines, can well
discern the secret motives which
prompt this letter from the senator.
1t is true 1 did not support the SEN
ator in his candidacy for the senate.
could not endorse his proposition for
woman suffrage nor his psoposition to
enact a law whereby the white peo-
pies taxes should go to the education
of the white children only and those
paid by the negro to the education OF
the negro children only. The latter
an absolutely unconstitutional, revo-
lutionary and impractical measure
was discussed and championed by the
senator in every speech / heard him
make in the campaign, and 1 think
heard him at least a dozen times; but
| if he ever undertook in the slightes,
particular to frame a law to this end
and dealing with this proposition nc
one ever heard of it. And I defy him
| to prove that he did. I gave him
credit then for having too much intel
| tligence to suggest such dema gogit
Legislation, and it seems that he learn.
ed better upon more deliberate
thought.
| There was no personal reason or
my part for not supporting the sen.
ator, and there never has been time
| that / felt personally unkind toward
| him. l we'll remember several year:
1ago when he was first candidate fol
tax collector Il think 1T was in 1903.
that 1 rendered him some good ser
Twice. He seems to have forgotten thi
in his zeal at present to bring me int,
! this game law discussion and to max,
! his personal reflection upon me. Tn,
difference between me and the sen
ator in this particular is that I am il
favor Of strict measure of protection
OF the game and he, the senator, II
favor Of any old thing if he~can 'hol
ler" farmer" and get vote. Lik
woman suffrage and negro education
this howl does reach some. Especia
exception do I take to the followin.
j, from the senator's article of this morn
ing:
/ "It then developed after Mr.. Bullocl
had returned from Ocala that he wa
opposed to any kind of a game bill
!. except one that would give specia
privileges to his clients tthe partie
who own the large hunting preserv
near Lake George) and to the me
[ who pull these peoples legs
> 1 have never been. at any time, un
der any circumstances, in any manne
whatsoever. the attorney for thes
: ipeople; have never visited their prop
t erty, never saw it. and was never az
, preached by any member of the clu
or any one else upon the subject G
: Legislation, except by Mr.. r. L. Mar
tin, who informs me that he also ar
lproached the distinguished senate
upon the subject of exempting thes
ipeople from the payment of license t
hunt. This was long before the legis
lature met. / then believed it prope
T and right to exempt them as well q
any otHeFS VINO mad put thousands an
: thousands of dollars into property i
3 this county and who hunted upon the
!. own enclosed premises or preserve.
If this distinguished senator-th
man who is always right and in who's
I destination every one else Is wrong an
a wicked, found it such a sin to exemI
these people, why in the name Of &C
did he vote for the bill when 1t can
lover to the senate from the house
Representatives I don't know whetl
Ter he promised Mr. Martin to frame
e law exempting these people or not.
? $50 did, and / did II. Mr. Martin II
o forms me that the senator gave hi
q to understand that he was in favt
LOT the exemption. and In view of II
fact that he voted for 1t, 1t would al
D pear that his present opposition ar
Iffnding OF fault Is not sincere.
: Will the senator kindly inform US
: Mr.. Martin is one OF the men who pul
r ed these peoples leg?
y II the bill was bad one because
t the amendments I placed on 1t. as Il
: fsenator now makes out he thinks,
trepeat why did he swallow 1t witho
Igrease?H