The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1913-03-02
vOx PoPULI.
ALDERMAN SEMMES ANSWERS
STATE SENATOR STOKES
Pensacola March 1. 1913.

Pensacola March 1, 1913.
| Editor Pensacola Journal.
l am loath to reply to the unfair
personal insinuations of our state SEN
ator in this mornings paper, relative
to my conduct as a councilman and as
citizen. But shall answer briefly.
He asks If it is not strange that i
should have introduced the resolution
calling for an election on the ques-
ton of commission government, after
being foremost in opposing the meas
ure before the council calling for an
election on the question of owning an
electric light plant.
The senator is either careless or
maliciously unfair, as the records will
show that Mr.. Bear made the only ad-
dress to the council on that night ami
he took some time in explaining to
the council why he had changed his
mind relative to the question, and
while favoring the question before
that he was now opposed to 1t. I did not
make one single remark on the ques-
ton. The vote was eleven to one in
favor Of not holding an election on the
electric light plant at this time.
Did not one of the vice-presi1ents
OF the Jones organization vote with
the eleven, and is he not paid en-
ployee OF Stone & Webster? Did not
this same official oppose the question
OF the municipal hospital, and is he
not a stock holder in the present hos
pital, which now has contract with
the city? Is he not also an employee
of the L. & n. r. r. Co.?
Is 1t not fact that you contradict
yourself Mr.. Senator, when you speak
of 1t being easier to control two men
than 1t Is to control twelve, and then
say that Mr.. Warren made short adj
iress and convinced eleven?
When I stopped you, Mr.. Senator,
and showed you the committees pro-
posed utility clause and asked you to
approve 1t. or suggest a substitute, is
it not a fact that you told me that
the proposed clause was a little
stronger than you would have made
it? I say you did.
The senator absolutely disregards
facts when he says that the COM
mittee submitted the proposed char
ter to a firm of attorneys, who are as
ISOLATED with public service corpora
tons. The firm passing on this char
ter was the firm of Reeves, Watson &
Pasco. The committee did not consult
any attorney, until Mr.. John B. Jones
said that in order to avoid future pos
sible criticism he preferred that we
do so.
against the committee charter by one
OF the bond trustees, who claimed that
the adoption of the committee charter
would invalidate the bond election, and
Mr.. Dobson, who had been SO active
in carrying through the wharf issue.
was anxious to assure the commercial
association that the rumor was with
out foun dalton, so he asked the COM
1nittee to get an opinion from Judge
Carter, who had been associated with
the law firm, which had also been the
bond trustees attorneys, for which
opinion he would stand the expense.
Mr.. Dobson was to leave Pensacola
on that day for Washington, and that
was why he asked the committee to
attend to this matter for him.
The opinion says: 1--WE have not
seen or examined the proposed BILL
other than portion Of Section % re-
ferred to, and our opinion is therefore
confined entirely to the question
above"
i defy the senator to prove otherwise
or to show in any one way that any
other advice or even conversation has
been held with anyone connected with
any public service corporation.
o. j. SEMMES, JR-