The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1914-04-02
S UESIION TO
BE UP IN CAMPAIGN
Voters win Not Have Long to
Wait to Voice Approval or
Disapproval of Repeal.
TBy Charles Brooks Smith,

WASHINGTON, April At would
take lots OF time and no mean talent
to satisfactorily analytic and report
briefly on the mass of letters received
by Representative Sutherland on the
referendum vote he took on the ques-
ton whether the exemption clause OF
the canal tolls act should be repealed.
He sent out $500 letters to bankers
lawyers, editors and coal operators.
The replies for the first two days num-
bered exactly 207, of which 1872 faV-
ored repeal and seyenty-fve opposed
it. On the strength of that batch the
statement was sent out that the re-
plies were about five to one In favor
of repeal, which statement was an
error as these figures prove. After
that the replies poured in by the hun
dreds and the sentiment was shown u
be more equally divided. There wa9
no division whatsoever along political
lines. "'If the exemption clause VIC"
lates our treaty, then favor repeat -
the ground of reasoning seeming to pc
that the treaty was contract which
should be lived up to. This view was
taken very largely by bankers. Many
of the writer's confessed themselves
uninformed on the subject and said
that they would be willing to leave II
to the congressman-at-larg as he
was on the ground and in close touch
with all the many and difficult phases
of the case. A significant and inter
esting fact is that all the railroad
lawyers were united in favor or re-
peal, as were the representatives OF
corporations known to be closely al
lied to the railroads. Whenever a re-
ply was based on the premise that
question OF national sovereignty was
paramount then the author of that re-
ply was sure to be found opposing re-
peal. When a writer considered the
question of ship subsidy uppermost,
he was pretty likely to line himself
up in favor of the reepal OF the ex-
emption clause. A great many OF the
letters showed a woeful inability TO
crash the main issue involved, and
not a few of the writer's were frank
enough to confess 1T.
Aside from what the Sutherland
referendum showed in the way OF
divided sentiment, it was on the whole
Informing and valuable, because 1T
presented innumerable arguments on
all sides OF the question, supplement-
ing what knowledge MT. sutherland
acoufred by a thorough study of the
subject in all its phases. His views
will he set forth in a speech which
will he printed In the record. AS the
debate was limited to twenty hours,
Mr. sutherland, along with scores OF
other members who would have liked
ia have been heard. and had prepared
his address, was unable TO get IN on
the time He was recognized. now
ever. and given lief to extend his re-
marks in the Record. SO his speech
will set forth his line OF reasoning IN
arriving at the conclusion to cast ms
vote against repeal.
with the exception of Congressman
Avis. who had very definite views
from the first against repeal and stated
tbeTn clearly ind forcefully in a pubic
interyiew. the balance of the delega-
tions studied the question Industrious
~ and with open minds without reach
mo a decision until almost the very
last day. Judge Moss was the trst OF
the number to state how he stood
which he did in a splendid speech
against the "gag rlllS" Delivered 1ast
ESTiday. He said in that Dried ADDRESS
that he opposed repeal. Sutnerlana'
Prown. Nicely and Hughes waited TO
lot tbeir. votes show no wthey STOOD
~ at least all did except Hughes;
II,,ebes was the one member present
nd not voting. He told friends tnat
i,a VAS apired in opposition to repeal.
r. was figured, however, that as
ohoice between UNFOLDING the presl-
$5aD+ or the Baltimore platform, Neely
would get ffthe platform ana ~
with the president. The same tn L-as
1T,ae f3e1Ired as to Brown, but II was
CONTINUED on page hve.)