The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1912-02-24
ADDRESS.
To the Voters of the Ninth Senate.
rial District, Setting Forth MY
Stand o., the Liquor Question,

Stand O., The Liquor Question.
Some OF tho politicians of this dis
trlct who do not wish nc to BE-
eiected because Of my stand on pres
ent issues and because Of the little
part have played in the present
| campaign, are trying to raise an old
buried and mummyfied issue in a
| Win effort to weaken my candidacy
lhey are now seeking to make an
| issue OF nay vote on the liquor oues-
uon in 1908 in the House of Renre-
sentatlves. Well, I never dodge any
issue, not even a dead one. Since
| NY opposition is SO Woefully weak
as 70 nave to go to the political bone
yafd to find an excuse for fighting
me, ana cannot or will not meet me
on a field of real live issues. / will
JON them on the battle-ground of
their own choosing.
During the course of this campaign
at Donaldsonville and at many other
points of this district, I have dis
cussed in frank and open manner
my stand on the liquor question in
l9OS and my stand on the same uues-
ZION at the present time. What 7
snail now have to say needs must
be but a repetition of what I said
On these various occasions. | am 60
ing over the same grounds again.
not in the hope of silencing those
who so about harping on this soil
tary dead issue. It is their only |
stock in trade, it is the only little
speech which parrot-like they have
learned to iterate and reiterate to
those who are gullible enough to
need them. Pecky, weak, warped
and narrow as it is, it seems to be
the one plank platform of my dis
opponent, my friend Mr..
Henry Himel. But l am reverting to
his issue for the sake of those who
lid not attend the above referred
o meetings and who may have had
t called to their notice only from
ne one plank platform of my dis
lngulshed opponent, Mr.. Henry L. $
Iimel. i
In 1908 l and many others of the
legislature were of the opinion that !
rastic legislation was Indicated to :
ure the ills which, it was then uni :
ersally admitted, existed in the liu- .
or traffic-proVided that this leg y
station had the full force of public =
plnlon behind it; that is to say, y
roVided that this legislation met s
'lth the approval of the people of - :.
lis state. A bill was prepared !
hich | introduced. There were two -
ements in this bill, viz: First, the =. =.
lactment of a prohibition law, and ~ ~
econd, the submission of this law u u
i approval Or disapproval to the y:
eople OF this state. The Interim -
St. James parish, whose editor IN ID
an in-law of my distinguished OPP "
'nent, Mr.. Henry L. Hime1, has ~
ken me to task for the introduc- - :;
N Of this bill. To fortify its o.
argos it has drawn from the -,
urnaI of the House of Representa- = =
.es. But it has had the singular ~. -
fairness Of giving plal,seitg only to a ~
: prohibition feature of the bill, - -
ppressing the most essential and - -
'nificant part Of it: the submission g.
lture. The Weekly Democrat of - -
whose editor is the ~: ~
9ther OF an erstwhile. competitor -
still active opponent of mine, ~
.yor Maurin, has also poured t un
tie or two Of vitriolic editorial e ele
on my devoted head for the in eel
duction of this bill It strikes a 1sll
sill =, j. y - IL, $500 hib
it to a popular vote and the pro s a..
ion that it would become law on LEG
in case the majority of the peo- w; We
of this state SO decided-were i,.n
Elclently Democratic in nature to ~
1t the nowadays so fastidious slii'
nocratic taste of even so ultra - Is !.
Democrat as my friend of the eatl
ekly Democrat. ,sis
[y House Bill No. 202 prohibited hle.
indiscriminate sale of liquor, S
vided that the law was submitted self
the people OF. this state AT 4 nes:
eral election and received the me
GRITTY OF the votes cast at that Irle]
ton In case the majority of bere
votes was adverse, the bill Tor
'ided that the law would not be- my
g operative, Make M mistake agai
It this. Ny bill did not force my
Llblflon on the people as has I
lgnorantly and maIiciausly Barr
ed. It simply pup it UP to the purH
ie 70 decide the prohibition On t
ton for themselves-to say in says
sovereign capacities whether platf
wanted Or did not want pro- III
ion. cove
is referendum bill died a born that
The votes of the representa- the
of the people consigned it to expe
limbo of political by-gones where On
interim, the Weekly Democrat luesl
Mr.. Henry L. Himel, for want of Eacke
real live issue against me, have ZION.
to raise it as a ghost in the ! 9
hope Of frightening the neaple Ct t
from ny Candidacy. latio
the regular session of 1910 IS on
Il opportunity presented itself of poilts
ing the prohibition referendum serve
gliding up the Panama Canal 2 puf
sition amendments. danre- priVa
doing SO, and it was not done. able
S about that time that I began zeal
cede from the position which T flew, ]
r4y occupied on the Hquer traf- mites
pri
ms the campaign which is now and
g the Anti-saloon League was slneer
: to find a candidate to run oromi