The Palatka news and advertiser., 1916-01-07
and Advertiser.
LIT South Second st. ehone iso.
VIM. A. RUSSELL Editer.
SOME REMARKS
PERSONAL.

The editor of The News has been
attacked by Hon. VIM. G. Tilghman
because of his opposition to the Davis
package liquor law, in lengthy COM
munication published in last weeks
Times Herald. In his reply the editor
will refer to himself in the first per-
son, singular, and
Will plead guilty to opposition to
the Davis law; to opposing chat law
in the legislature of 1913 IN face OF
letters and kilograms from some good
people; also to having made several
s'slams" at the law in this paper since
the same was enacted.
| have not, however, up to this time
been guilty of any personalities, nor
have | lost my temper and denounced
those who cannot, or will not agree
with me.
It seems a little strange that men
who differ on moral question, and
especially Christian men. cannot dis"
cuss their differences without impug-
ming the motives of their opponent.
| admit, and have for many years
admired the exalted Christian charac-
ter of Mr.. Tilghman; l do not ques-
ton the sincerity of his motives IN
advocating the Davis law; but | have
thought and still think that he has
been misled; that his reasoning is IL
logical and his conclusions harmful to
a cause for which we have both la
bored. i. e., the prohibition of the bev-
erage liquor traffic.
In my opposition to the Davis law
| have made some thrusts which, to
some, may have seemed vicious, but
they have all been made with the view
to draw attention of the people to
the harmfulness of the law. In pub
fishing this reply to Mr.. Tilghman S
attack, | am given the opportunity
wish to show why, in my opinion, an
avowed prohibitionist does wrong in
giving aid and comfort to law
which sanctions the sale, in any form
of Intoxicating liquor for beverage
purposes.
What about the Davis Law?
The law was first introduced in the
legislature of 1911 by Senator Chas
E. Davis of Madison county. Mr.
Davis is an open enemy of prohlbl
ton. He voted against the submls
sion of the prohibition amendment; hi
doesn't want the traffic in liquor out
lawed. When his 1911 bill was intro
duced land that bill was identica
with the present law the measur'
was strenuously opposed by the Flori
da Anti-Saloon League, whose Stat,
Superintendent, Rev. Mr.. Collins, wa
present in person and with lobby t'
oppose its enactment. Mr.. Collin!
thought it was vicious measure. Th'
bill was defeated.
Senator Davis re-introduced the bill
in 1913. 1t was again defeated, al
though the Anti-Saloon League o.
Florida was present at the legislator;
in the person of its Superintendent
Rev. Mr.. Crook and powerful lob
by, advocating it. If it was bat
bill in 1911, it was certainly the sam,
bad bill in 1918, for the measures
were the same.
The liquor men are not united body
The distiller and the wholesaler, o
at least an organization of them, ar
not in love with the saloon-keeper
the retailer. They charge the retail
saloon with the present bad odor il
which their business is regarded
They prefer the package business a
a solution of the diffculty-and t.
increase their own profits. This or
ganization favored the dispensary.
has been said that Senator Davis is
or was, in league with these liquo
package law, advocates.
I do not believe that it is necessar.
for me to tell the people of Putnam
county that | am now and have al
ways been in favor of ABSOLUTELY
PROHIBITING the traffic in intoxi
eating beverages. In every contes
since becoming of age | have openl.
advocated prohibition, and | shall con
tinue to do so as long as l live an
there is a beverage liquor business t
fight.
They will remember that The Pa
latka News has beer "