The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-03-03
LETTERS TO EDITOR
Another Letter From Watkins

| To the Editor of The Age Herald:
 In your issue of February 26 I had a reply to MT II. C. Stradford's communi- cation of February 21. In this communi- cation he asked, some of Captain Hob sons supporters to reply Judging from h1s reappearance he really did not expect a reply It seems he considers it took q heroic correspondent to reply to his royal highness. l did not feel that 1 was com
 mitting breach to his royal highness. I cid not feel that I was committing a 1 breach in replying to a man who seemed so well posted, and anticipated that he
 would really impart the information asked Tor Instead he tries to throw his ignor- ance of Senator Bankheads ever having been prohibitionist on to the public by saying that if Senator Bankhead is a
 prohibitionist that it is the first time the public ever heard of it.
 If MT. Stradford would take lime and
 look at The Age-Herald of November To- 1909, he would easily see that Senator
 Bankhead, over his own signature pro- claimed to the public just what 1 stated about his prohibition proclivties. l never heard of a denial of this in our home papers until this campaign began. and ammunition began to get low in the Un- derwood camps. Senator Bankhead may or may not be prohibitionist. am talk
 ing the gentleman's word for it. and thought l had appealed by solicitation to the head of the source for information IT l am to consider what he says with reference to the public never having
 heard of it, then I must have gotten the
 only issue of The Age-Herald on No- Vemper ID. 1909. or else Mir Stradford' g memory is bad. and his idea of the public is in rather concentrated form
 In MT. Stradford's effort to prove Cap tain Hobson not a prohibitonist, he claims Captain Hobson tried to organize
 the "Wets and Drys" into separate camps in the promotion of his interest.
 IT l am not in error some of these local optionsts. sometimes for the sake of ar gument, claim to be prohibitionists. but l note here is where you get them right.
 and l want to thank you for it. For if does take real brave man supporting
 MT. Underwood to call them by the right
 names, and using your own language
 ..The wise may be deceived once only fools are twice deceived in the same man. ner' In this l heartily indorse you
 The local-optionists are vets, for you say so. and I agree with you. They did fool Us once. and possibly had Captain Hobson fooled at the start but when the governor, Cousin Charles, and others got behind the frame-up and called them local optionists, we had no trouble in placing them. The gang they gang with ioOhS anu sIlellS NnlSky-Of, as You call it. wet We are now wise on the bunch and they cannot fool us again.
 Referring to my first reply to you. Do you and MT. Underwood's allies charge and state that Senator Bankhead was not true dyed-in-the-wool prohibtionlst at the time Captain Hobson supported
 him for the United States Senate and long prior thereto. and has been such ever since? With your immense fund of knowluedge it looks like you might an- swer. Your attempted answer sounds like Mir. Underwoods answer to the charge of his having voted wet in 1907. Don't dodge an answer by asking a oues- tion.-
 l hope that Mir J. H. Stilman will con
 slider this an answer to him also, for
 know nothing of Captain Hobson's s indict- ment of Senator Bankhead. nor Senator Bankheads prohi-proclivities other than stated above There can be but two sides to this campaign, wet or dry" and this will be the issue In all future cam paigns until whisky will be known as a thing of the past And the man who dares to run for office now or in the flu ture on local option platform will be en- deavoring to fool the people, for he is and will be wet w. R. WATKINS.
 Birmingham. March 2, 1914.