West Virginia argus. [volume] (Kingwood, W. Va.) 1877-1946, 1916-03-02
KiNowoop. MARCH 2
SLIGHTLY MIXED

ARGUS has INDUCED in no "howling'
relative to the candidacy OF ex-Judge Ir.
T.. Robinson. 1t has submitted few
observations on the genteman's csndi
dacy, or rather it has reverted to TIN,
reasons given by the other half of the
Republican family why Judge Robinson
Is not the ideal candidate for the party
to nominate. Il has likewise quoted Tn,
members OF the house OF Robinson why
Gen. Lilly does not measure up to tn,
standard OF former candidates, such A.
Dawson, Glasscock and Hatfield. 1t
TO be presumed that this is merely diff.
Terence oil opinion between the member.
oil the two houses who are now struggling
Tor the mastery. The impartial voter.
however. must draw his own deduction,
as to whether either one OF the gentlemen
Is the man whom the people should cleo
governor.
The Journal directs attention TO the
fact that certain coal operators are back
Ing Gen. Lilly. and, inferentially, assigns
this as reason why Gen. Lilly should be
defeated. On the other hand it quotes
approvingly ex-senator Davis Elkins, VIII,
Is one OF the leading coal operators Of TIM,
state, as indorsing and urging the nomi-
nation OF Judge Robinson Thus il con.
dennis and commends the action of thu
coal operators, which, according to the
rule OF common sense philosophy, l.
rather parsdoxical. The ARGUS cannot
zee why IL is crime for one coal operator
TO support Gen. Lilly and a virtue for
another coal operator to support Judge
Robinson. Probably the Journal can
offer q satisfactory explanation to it,
readers.
The Journal Rets forth the claim that
the reason the Democratic press is deyot.
ing more space to Gen. Lilly than judy,
Robinson is due to its belief that Lilly
would make the weaker candidate. o.
course The Argos cannot speak for the
rest OF the Democratic press, but as for
Itself IL is rather inclined to think tina
Lilly would be more popular with tn,
rank and file OF his party than Judg,
Robinson, due TO the belief, whether real
or fancied, that Robinson is the candi
date Of Gov. Hatfield For reasons better
known 70 the Republican brethren Gov.
Hatfield is not enjoying that degree OF
popularity among the brethren he did
when he 30 periodically exclaimed in his
inaugural address, Behold the new faces
on the horixonl" Since which time thu
microscope has failed 10 reveal one of the
promised new faces.
Those who have closely noted the edi-
torial columns Of the Journal will testify
how religiously the Journal has observed
the rule to not indorse the Hatfield pro
gram Of taxation. Its failure to do 60
must be accepted a. a condemnation.
The Journal also gives il as its opinion
that the special interests" are all against
Judge Robinson. AS the Elkins coal and
railroad companies are supporting Robin
son It sounds rather queer to hear il say
that 1.-THE Journal would like to see IN,
corporation influence in elections re
duced TO g minimum" To the ayerag,
voter this will appear inconsistent.
Il Is the universal belief among the
common people that the Especial in
terests' dictated the class OF Legislation.
enacted By the last Legislature. II ear.
hardly be claimed that the people in.
sisted the state tax be increased from ter,
70 fourteen cents. Gov. Hatfield, who i.
conceded 70 be the titular head OF Tn.
Republican party, promised there would
be no increase in the state tax; that in.
stead there would be a production ta1
placed on oil and gas, which promise
failed Of ful6llment. The Governor il an
ardent supporter Of Judge Robinson.
which would indicate that the SPECIAL
INTEREST," are not 60 violently opposed
70 Robinson.
The men in control Of the Republican
organization have hoodwinked the peopl,
Tor good many years by the cry Of
corporations. In 1904 those who Oh.
posed the Dawson tax laws were charac
teEized ~ Corporation nirelings. +" The
people were told that the reason the
Dawson tar laws we're opposed was no.
cause they would increase the taxes OF
the corporations and reduce the taxes OF
the farmers and poorer class Of tar
payers. When the opposition stated that
there would be no exemption in the in
crease in the tar ticket they we're an.
sWered By corporation hirelings." The
new tax laws have been In opars,iop
twelve years, and We would ask eli thoa
Who read THE 20 compare their tax ticket
Of 1904 With thst Of 1915. let the tax
heket decide whether there has been
decrease or an increase. There can be-
no going behind what The tax ticket die
closes. Il tells the tale more eloouentI,
than pen or orator. OF course those WHO
advocsted The new tax lava have lone
snos ceased contending that they would
reduce taxation. On the CONTRARY. they
are sndeAvorina With sophistry and mis-
representation 10 explain the cause Of the
increase. The people are we'll aware.
however, that they were grievously fooled
10 1904. II they permit themselves 10 be
hoodwinked again IN 1916 they should
take their medicine without complaining.
-
We take Il that esch taxpayer will de-
eide Tor himself who is responsible Tor the
increass IN tie tax ticket. Those who
have paid their taxes Tor 1918 know that
there has been considerable increase In
The tar ticket Of 1918 over that Of 1914.