Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1912-11-04
DR.. Wilson on Liquor Traffic.

been made neither is it likely to be-
we fear, until after Nov. 5.
DR. Wilson's position on the booze
traffic question seems to be much the
same as it is on the trust question
his state the worst in the Union in
both cases, yet he cannot be persuaded
to lift a finger against either except in
broad generalities, this" to one sec
ton and that to another
Under New Jerseys license system
more liquor is consumed per capita
than in any other part of this ceun-
try Has Governor Wilson done any
thing in aid of the temperance work.
ers?
New jersey is the mother Of all OF
the great trusts against which he bonn
basticallv declares. Has he ever made
a move to dissolve the hated ones?
Following is the letter above referred
to:
August 20, 1912. s.
Hon. Woodrow Wilson,
Sea Girt, n. j.,
Dear Sir
Again | have received letter this
morning inquiring in regard to your
stand on the local option and temper
ance issues, this time from VIM. ).
Herwig, Esq, superintendent OF the
Idaho Anti-Saloon League. | will quote
his letter in full;
Ia 1872
Mr. Edwin l. Stearns,
Newark, n. j.
Dear Brother Stearns:
am enclosing herewith an Item
that | took from our local evening pa
per. | can hardly believe it possible
that Governor Wilson should be using
his influence in any way to try 10 Sc
cure local option for Maine instead OF
retaining statewide prohibition.
would like to have line from you
personally as to the attitude Governor
Wilson takes on the temperance cues
ton. There is mighty strong Wilson
sentiment in this state and any utter
ances that you may have OF wilson
which l might have in my paper y
occasion should arise that | should
need 1t, l will be greatly Obliged to
you.
Very sincerely
fSigned) w. ]. HERWIG,
| - State superintendent.
This is but one of the many inquiries
| am receiving from the prohibition
and local option states and | am ut
terly at loss to know what to reply
to them. In Texas they quote you IN
favor of prohibition, in Maine they
quote you in favor of local option, and
in New Jersey for local option, quail
fiedly
Your declaration to the Anti-Saloon
League. as contained in your letter TO
cur former State Superintendent, was
as follows:
II am in favor of local option. | am
a thorough believer in local sef-goV-
eminent and believe that every sell
governing community which constr
tutes a social unit should nave the
right to control the matter of the reg
ulation or of the withholding of IL
censes.
but the questions involved are social
and moral not political, and are not
susceptible of being made parts OF d
party programme, etc.
Your campaign bureau is now CIR
culating the above letter in Maine
and other states, but with the very
significant commission of the words,
mot Political" which occur in the
third para graph of the original letter.
These are tbs words against WHICH SO
such objection was made when the
letter was first made public, because
the only method by which local option
could he enacted into law would be by
,,oliticM activity. namely, the election
NJ 7 LEGISLATORS favorable TO the issue.
THESE words in your letter gave COM
fort to the LIQUOR interests OF New
Jersey as they are against the enact
ment of a local option law. In Maine.
of course. the liquor interests them
selves are campaigning for local option
in their effort to defeat state wide pro-
hibition.
When a copy of the above letter was
sent by you to Mr.. Samuel WILSON, Oh
Jersey City, with the ommlssioii Oh
these words, he Immediately wrote you
and called attention eto the fact tla'
the letter was not an exact copy OF tiie
original and conveyed an entirely OIL
ferent meaning because of the eiiiili-
nation of these two words. BUT sun
il is being used in this erroneous ioriii
Again. the Texas people, ana Tue
advocates of statewide prohibition III
Maine. and in other states. are elaith-
ing that you are favorable TO state
wide prohibition, and in support OF
their contention are quoting the loi
lowing letter which you wrote 10 MI
Grogan. of Boyers, Texas:
state of Nsw Jersey,
Executive Department. ,o,,
Ny dear Mr. Grogan: -.
You mistook me if you thought tnat
| was treating your first letter as a
| communication of politician, OF IL
you supposed that | was trying IN any
way To avoid the important question
YOU put to me The reply l mace wa
made in all sincerity. beileVs tnat
for some states statewide prohlpition
| is possible and desirable, because OF
the relative homogeneity, Wmle TOT
others | think that statewide prom
hilton is not practicable. ! nave no
| reason to doubt from what | know OF
the circumstances that state wide pro-
| hibition is both practicable and desir-
| able in Texas In my reply to you,
| was only trying to state what THINK
| must always be kept in mind-the
! wide divergence of conditions when
| make ii impossible to reply to any
| single question like those or prom
| bition in terms which would lit the
| whole country, -.
With much respect, cordially and
i sincerely yours, -,
| (Signedl WOODROW WILSON.
Mr. H. w Grogan,
| RavsrS. Texas