The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1912-05-16
THE PEOPLES FORUM.
flr. Weiner's Deferred Answer to
FIR. RObinscn'S Communication.

/ LIOn Dill, uOSS me lOO IlUCu 4LOIlol. 1AC
facts are as | stated before: The bill
was not reported from the Committee
on Temperance, and if it had been, a
| twO-thirds vote could have suspended
the rules and passed it. If the Temper
ance committee smothered the bill be-
cause of my expressed opposition then
my influence with the committee was
such that wish I could have used it in
a worthier cause. No member of that
committee consulted me about the mat
ter and if | am responsible it Is on the
ground that a statement from some
body that | opposed the bill threw the
committee on Temperance into state
of CONSERVATION, in the midst OF which
they threw up their hands and said: 1T
is useless to report the bill. Weimer will
oppose it; let 1t die in the committee
room and let US see to it that Robinson,
| the great reporter, officiates at its fun
eral with special care to show the fatal
stab from Weimer's hand.
DODIIlSOII lids DItSluCt az llIC CboCN iGlCS
of the bill with due attention to my
fatal wound, and done this, so he would
have us believe at his own expense.
This is truly magnanimous. Profess
sional reporters are generally paid SO
much a column for their illusions, but
Robinson writes nearly five columns Of
matter which he publishes in each of
our three Oakland papers at so much
per column at his own expense just for
the qualification of his righteous feeling
that the voters of Garrett county ought
to know the angelic purity of Senator
Speicher's devotion to temperance and
his persistent, unwearied endeavors for
legislation in its interests as well as to
show Weimer's errors. This lofty pa
triotism is so unusual that was led to
infer that in some way Senator Speicher
had something to do with the matter.
Mr. Robinson says that Senator
Speicher is in no way connected with
the said article either in inspiring its
publication or suggesting and CT its
statements" He would have US be-
lieve that the forty dollars, more or
less, required to pay for the printing of
the articles was cheerfully paid by him
self. | do not believe it, There is a
colored gentlemen in the woodpile some
where. | do not say that Senator
Speicher furnished the money. | do
not know any thing about it. | do not
say that the wet" opponents of the
Local Option Bill whom Senator Speicher
served so faithfully paid for this glow
ing defense Of their savior. | do not
know where this money came from. 1t
does seem unreasonable that Mr.. Robin
son should spend so much labor in writ
ing these articles and then pay 50 much
for printing them just for the pleasure
Of misrepresenting both Senator
Speicber and myself and by so doing
seek to make Senator Speicher's per-
fidlous treachery to a pledge, which he
denies, rebound to his glory and my
shame | admit that such a course on
the part of Mr. Robinson is possible.
My conduct with reference to the
Statewide Local Option Bill was con-
sistent with my pledge and principles.
l. did every thing l could to have
the hill reported from the Committee
on Temperance at an early date 80 that
deliberate action could be taken upon it,
2. I was ready at any time and eager
to support the Dill.
8. l was opposed to any amendment
to the bill.
l. An amendment was offered which
would change the bill by providing that
Baltimore city, Baltimore, county, Anne
Arundel county. Alleganv county, st.
Mary's county, Charles county, Wash
ington county, Ellicott City and the city
of Havre de Grace vote on this question
as entire units and not by districts and
wards By this amendment the bill was
not changed in the slightest particular
excepting for six counties and three
cities. 1t did not affect Garrett county
nor any county not mentioned in the
amendment. 1t still left the bill a
STATE WIDE LOCAL OPTION BILL.
In all this discussion let this not be for
gotten. THIS BILL AS AMENDED
PLACED EVERY SQUARE foot
OF THE TERRITORY OFTHE STATE
UNDER LOCAL OPTION. | voted
against the amendment which was lost.
5. One Of the Delegates the then
moved to reconsider the amendment
stating that if the amendment was not
accepted he would move to lay the bill
on the table and he had assurance from
two others that they would vote with
him. These three votes had the balance
of power. If they voted against the
bill it was lost and no temperance legis.
latiOn could be secured this year. Many
OF the delegates like myself regretted
the situation, but felt that the bill thus
amended would be strong, effective and
a splendid temperance advance. Accord
ingly we voted for the amendment
which carried The hill tbuC o,,opdod