The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram., 1914-06-20

dry officials at Mr. Nicholsons head
quarters? Why was not only this for
eigner, but other foreigners who were
legal voters denied the right to vote
by dry officials? Why were men who
had been living in Richmond for years,
but known to be Wet. challenged by the
score and forced to go to trouble and
expense to swear their votes in? Why
We're dry election officials instructed
not to accept even affidavits OF reSpOn-
sible and we'll known residents OF this
city? Why We're men harassed at the
polls BY these dry officials until many
Of them left in disgust without voting?
Why was it that in the same precinct
where the Italian above mentioned was
challenged, every man in line was Chal-
lenged in the evening Just as the
"ShOp rush came on, and men were
thereby intmdated into leaving with
out voting? Why was a member of
the fire department, q resident OF this
city ever since his birth. challenged by
dry official? Why did S. Edgar Mich
olson himself go to the Second ward
and while there question the right OF
man to vote whom he had never seen
before. and who had been a legal voter
in that precinct for over a generation?
Why was it when protest was made
to the dry officials against their un-
warranted. illegal and corrupt prac-
tees, after they had been publishing
ads for days insisting upon an honest
election. that they replied they had
been 'instructed" to do as they were
doing upon the ground that "anything
was fair to beat tho liquor interests"
1t might be interesting to hale some of
f these men before grand jury and in
quire who it was that gave these in
structions in corrupt practices"
Why was it, if the drys really want
ed to keep only illegal voters from vot-
ing, that they sent as poll book hold
ers and challengers men who were
, strangers to the precinct where they
worked? How could such men know
the voters of precincts where they had
never worked in their life?
Why was it that the dry officials
challenged men simply because these
men are not on our books ?" Who made
up special set of poll books for the
drvs with the names of vets left off SO
that they might be conveniently chal-
lenger and if possible, harassed into
not voting?
p'll TIE question vi Npl uBtipll, II
might be interesting to know why it
was that known election "grafters'
and "croOks' who We're refused their
price by the wet organization were
found working in the dry organization
What sweet persuasion" was used by
the dry organization to secure their
services and to what uses were they
put? Why was ii that professional
election leeChes known to every man
who has had anything to do with local
politics as being so venal they WOuldn t
put out a fire in their own house un-
less they We're slipped a piece of boo
die, were so ardently dry on election
day and so glOriOusly drunk the day
after? 1t would be difficult to prove
these men We're bOOdled by citing the
actual passage Of the money but it
would be very embarrassing for the
dryS TO nave to produce the man who
was responsible for their conversion
If the drys had anybody within their
organization who secured the support
of these men to their cause by the sim
pie process Of logic and appeal to rea
son, it is too bad that man was not
put in charge Of their publicity instead
of the anonymous Citizens Committee
1t might also throw a ray OF light
upon the methods of S. Edgar NichOl
son to summon his son. Vincent Mich
olson, before a grand jury. to explain
what the blind boy. whom the drys
got to swear to a false affidavit re
garding his being given drinks by {
dead saloon keeper. meant. when learn
ing the newspapers wouldn't handle
this affidavit, he asked Vincent Mich
olson, We'll, don't I get my money
now for making this affidavit?" Who
was in the business of paying this boy