The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1911-11-23
My THIS CHANGE o. nass.T.
Webster Ws~Afy Une~ ErfvwTve1 81
stsaEz.sn@ - = Iy0tzssyEss IL 1Isr In
t~wx~t st kas~ Iuwpcr~ss0ns-

The Rsaasxti1e nsxAsa - xsIsI TT
.nE 10 Nes Wehstrr's wsskIs % tel
@hy Il 49, F.cwnt1y ~tarnt 10 sssz-
ga0na after having Labelled hlsa =
lobbyist working IN tie interest -
the corporations Friday. laxae O.
The Re!dSTilIs Rsvss~. in referring
70 Weos,er's weekiy'x change o.
front. xays:
October i. 1900. {, twehxter's
weezlyl said CT Senator Simmons.
The Weekly has teen trying. ~
intervals for year or more 10 Sc
cure from Chairman simmons II ex-
preston Of bis sentiments or The
client echo episode Of the Legisla-
ture Of 1899. We have urged that
by virtue Of his Official position and
the fact that he Is q candidate for
the high Office OF United States Sem
ator. that he should let the people
know to what extent he regards the
platform OF the party as binding:
whether he things IL binds editors.
farmers. teachers and the privates In
the ranks. but exempts lawyers and
Legislators. He denounced-and very
properly, We think,-the editor OF
the Asheville Gazette for selling his
services 10 the Republican leaders TO
fight the Constitutional Amendment.
but has not explained wherein that
transaction differs from the action of
a Democratic lawyer In selling his
services to corporations and individ-
uals to render of no effect a bill
aimed at trusts and combines In
North Carolina. We have called his
attention to the News and Observers
account of the manner in which his
law partner, Mr.. James II. Pou,
figured in the fight on the Stevens
antitrust bill, but not a word have
We been able to twist out of him as
to whether he approved or disap-
proved of the cutting Of all the
meat out of that measure in the Sem
ate Committee
And again:
The following interview with
Senator VIM. Lindsey, Of Rocking
ham County, than whom there was no
truer or purer man in the State,
shows that he (Senator Simmons)
was very much in evidence, and on
/ the wrong side, in the fight to tax
railroads upon their gross receipts,
! spending two days in lobbying
/ against it in the Senate after it had
passed the House and been favorably
reported by unanimous vote of the
| Finance Committee of the Senate:
"'Question: Mr.. Simmons in an
open letter to J. D. Allen, says he
did no lobbying during the regular
session of the Legislature of 80,
save to help secure the passage of
the Amendment, the Election Law.
etc. Is that true?
Answer: No, sir. While the
Machinery Bill was being discussed
in the Senate chamber, Mr.. Simmons
spent two days on the floor of the
Senate fighting that provision of the
bill which would tax the gross re-
ceipts of the railroads, and to my
personal knowledge induced two Sen
ators who were for it to vote against.
Question: Was the action OF
Mr.. Simmons in this matter resented
by any Senator?
Answer: Yes, sir. Two other
Senators besides myself seriously dis
cussed the propriety of Offering a
resolution denying the privileges OF
the floor to any others, save actual
members, expressly to get rid of Mr.
Simmons officious interference with
legilation then before the Senate.
AS The Weekly is now support
ing Senator Simmons for the Senate
it may find itself embarrassed i'll at
tempting to make an explanation
about this matter