The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-02-18

forces and which had been adopted by
the Senate without dissenting voice,
would hold out for it's acceptance.
Adopt House Form.
While the matter was before tho
conferees 1 had heard some talk of an
effort being made to go back to the
form of the ballot. as provided In the
House bill, and not until the confer
cnce report vac read on the morning OF
the 18th did ! know what that report
contained, nor did know what
change In the attitude OF the dry forces
toward this amendment had taken
place until Senator Mapp nado his
speech on the report. I was surprised,
as | had supposed that this was ono
concession that the dry forces had
granted without contest. ! had been
assured by every dry member of the
Senate and House with whom I talked.
that II was fair and satisfactory. When
the vote on the report was taken |
registered my vote against its accept
ance. as had Informed Senator Mapp
would do and as l thought a number
Of others would, and / was satisfied
J that the report would not be adopted
Senator Mapp had told ME that he did
! not expect that one conference would
sufiice. but that another would be need
/ 1usted, and such Sc emed to be the pre-
vailing opinion: nor did / suppose for
a moment that the rejection Of the
conference report would mean tho de-
| feat OF the bill
l had toio the leaders of the dry
forces In the Senate and others that
| II was not my intention to try to de-
feat tho bill by loading il down with
anne ndments, and that l would not be
party 10 such plan, and that l did
not mean to try to accomplish by In
direct methods that which l was un-
wiling TO try to bring about by open
| ly opposing the bill.
i voted consistently with the drys
/ on all amendments offered except that
! with reference to the time at which
the law was TO become operative. IL
I being understood that l would reccde
/ IRON TINS position II the conference re-
)ected 1t. and the beer amendment,
OF which i knew nothing until II was
| offered, and which ! had never dis
cussed with any one, but which l voted
! for as even less harmful than the cider
amendment and consistent with It.
after this amendment was adopted
! learned that II was very offensive to
! the drys. SO ! again Informed Senator
| Mapp that while ] hoped the confer
ence would allow II to stand, Il they did
reject II would vote to sustain them.
i however. when the conference report
| VAC iiHaiiy mace up IL accepted the
| beer amendment with q minor change
extended the time to November /. 1916.
but rejected the amendment as to the
I ballot, which had been pronounced per-
s, fectiy fair. and had been accepted By
the dry forces without Il contest.
Disclnims Cannon Charge
In DR.. Cannon's letter to me no OBJ
lection is made to this amendment, but
he did object to an extension OF the
time. Now, In his article In the Vir-
ginian he stated that /. along with
others who had voted for the bill with
its vicious amendments, was not equa!
to the real test, but having been
weighed in the balance and found
wanting. at the crucial moment de-
serted and lined up with the enemy,
and absolutely misrepresented the
wishes OF majority OF my constitu-
ents.
Il What were those vicious amend
ments? The beer Observation-Disclosures
was adopted by tho conferences; the
u cider amendment?--that was offered
by the drys and adopted by the con-
ferees; the time amenument?-the time
was extended six months by the con-
ferecs. Then the vicious amendment
was necessarily the ballot amendment.
If that was vicious when the conferences
report was voted on. why was it not
vicious on the I'd OF February when
DR.. Cannon wrote me the letter have
mentioned, and, If vicious then, why
did he not mako some objection to 1t
as he did 10 tho 1917 amendment?
The leaders Of the dry forces knew
that was willing to yield OH the other
amendments if the conferees rejected
them, and Is Dr. Cannon was in con-
slant communication with them and fol
lowed the fight closely, 1t Is reason
able to suppose that he knew the no
sition ! had taken.
Placed In "EaIse Light
1t is with reluctance that ] make
this public statement, and | do so only
after careful consideration, but I feel
shat cannot in justice to myself and
my friends permit such a statement as
DR.. Cannon has made regarding mo to
go .unchallenged. placing me rs 1t
does In a false light and calculated MS
IL Is to do me great harm. ] make no
apology for my course. as I have acted
as believe TO be right. and voted for
submission of the question In form
which l think is fair, and l never
heard during the campaign the form OF
tho ballot discussed; II always being
represented to mo that a vote on tho
question of Statewide was all that the
people demanded. AS far as I can
ascertain, my crime seems to consist
In having taken different Wow of the
question from that taken by DR.. Can
non n X PROrK