The Teague Chronicle. (Teague, Tex.), Vol. 6, No. 1, Ed. 1 Friday, July 21, 1911 Page: 2 of 8
eight pages : ill. ; page 22 x 15 in. Digitized from 35 mm. microfilm.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
L .
v/ft
wl
d; -
! *.r •
n v/-V
■
,, ftft/
;
TO THE VOTERS OF TE
\ ' .. '• ! ‘ - •
insfitutioa J
on me lace ui me earui anu siyicu oy the grand jury of Dallas a school of crime. Campaign literature of the
type of the before mentioned ad is being scattered broadcast over this fair state in the closing days of this
campaign and to the voters appealed to we appeal to read, learn and inwardly digest its contents.
It is buncomb-PURE AND SIMPLE-Its authors have the temerity to put. all the voters of Texas in the sim-
pie ton class and believe them so devoid of common sense that they will swallow the deceptive soothing syrup
dope. They are distributing by means of advertisements, and especially their catechism which has not yet
seen the light by the majority of voters but is poised like the leopard for a final leap upon its prey m the closing
hours of the campaign when its authors suspect there will be no opportunity to inform the voters of the utter
rottenness of its statements.
' ' ~ : . . / . , . ft •
I propose to dissect this Catechism:
Question 1—What is meant by State-
wide prohibition?
Answer—S t a t e w i d e prohibition
means the adoption of a constitutional
amendment which prohibits within the
boundaries of Texas the sale, manu-
facture or use of beer, wine, whisky or
any other beverage containing alcohol,
except for medicinal, scientific, sac-
ramental purposes.
There is not a word in the amendment,
which anyone with sufficient common sense
to direct the actions of a mole could in-
terpret to refer to the USE of liquors. It
states:—“Prohibiting the manufacture for
the purpose of sale, barter or exchange,
and the sale, barter and exchange of in-
toxicating liquors,” except for the before-
mentioned purposes.
Question 137—What is the attitude
of Union labor on this question?
Answer—In evory State in the na-
tion where the question has been rais-
ed Union labor has passed resolutions
denouncing prohibition.
In answer to this: —(By Associated Press
and Houston Chronicle)—“Wkco, Texas,
May 18, 1911.—The State Federation of
Labor today refused to endorse the senti-
ment against Statewide prohibition ex-
pressed by. 3tate President William Hoef-
gen in his annual report, and this feature
on motion was ordered stricken from the
report.” ■ - ____________,_______
This shows that Union labor in Texas
refused to allow to appear in its records,
even in the report of its president. any(
sentiment against Statewide prohibition,
and the utter untruthfulness of the state-
ment contained in the anti catechism,
thousands of copies of which are now
stored in Teague awaiting the opportune
moment for the SALOON FORCES to dis-
tribute them in an attempt to hoodwink
the labor vote in Teague.
The BUNCOMB catechism says:
“Preachers, clergymen arid priests /
are employed to discuss theological
questions, to teach religion, as affect-
ing the individual man or woman, and
not through political ihachinery reach
the body politic.” Question 67—Po-
litical questions are foreign to their
employment, directly in violation of
the governmental principle of separa-
tion of church and State.
Voter! Since when did any jurist, living
or dead, discover in the constitution of
Texas the disfranchisement of all the
preachers of all denominations in the State
* of Texas? The anti champion of anti-
Statewide in this county at Kirvin in his
reply to Rev. MacIntosh*said “To hell with
the preachers.” I presume the antis wish
them there until after the 22nd. Yet they
* gladly use a preacher whenever he favors
the sale of whisky to debauch the life and
electorate of Texas. “Ye gods and little
fishes!” At the Fort Worth rally they
called in a broken down preacher of no de-
nomination, who admits that he has one
leg in the grave and the other chasing it,
to pray for the success of anti-Statewide—
the SALOON VS. HOME AND MOTHER.
Lfle prayed that God might give them wis-
dom. Voters, earnestly supplicate the
throne of heavenly grace that his prayer
may be answered, and there will not be an
anti in the State of Texas. Not only at
Fort Worth but at the anti rally at Teague
•to the strains of Dixie a banner was carried
through the streets of Teague bearing the
inscription “Rev. Bowers will speak at the
anti rally”—the rally to maintain the sa-
loon. Draw your own conclusions.
.Catechism Question 22—What are
thq favorite methods of the prohibi-
tionists in conducting this campaign?
Answer—They advise that the peo-
ple shall not read any of the facts
presented by the Anti-Statewide Pro-
hibition Organization of Texas.
No prohibitionist ever gave such advice.
If they mean that rotten sheet called
vFactfl” no prohibitionist could give such /
advice, for that rotten sheet misrepresents
the facts to delude the voters. . /■
Second—Tfiey advise that they do
not listen or hear discussions by op-
ponents of prohibition.
This is a lie pure and simple.
Third—They refuse absolutely to
discuss facts or arguments, and confine
their presentation of the cause to de-
nunciations, pathetic stories and emo-
tional appeals which do not deal with
the subject in a fair and honest man-
ner.
This is a lie. Every prohibition-speaker
deals with the' issue-'-the HOME against
the SALOON-the SOLE ISSUE in this
campaign. Anti speakers evade this issue
entirely. And it is they who do not wish
to discuss the question with prohibition
speakers in joint debate as was shown at
the Teague anti-prohibition rally when the
antis refused the offer of the pros to pay
half of the expenses of the barbecue if they
would allow a prohibition speaker the op-
portunity to address the gathering for 30
minutes. WHO doesn’t want their dis-
ciples to hear the real facts in the case?
Pros or antis? JUDGE, ye intelligent vot-
ers of good old Freestone county.
Catechism Question 110—Is there a
prohibition nation in the world?
Answer—Yes. Turkey, Iridia and
China are prohibition nations. They
absolutely prohibit the use of alcohol.-
This has absolutely np foundation in
fact. As nations no such laws are upon
their statute books. The fact is that the
Emperor of China said that while he
could not prevent corrupt men from intro-
ducing alcoholic poison into China, he
would never allow any revenue for the sup-
port of China to be derived therefrom.
Anti, have you less light than the Chinese?
Long have we suspected that you belonged
to the Dark Ages. Now we know it. Are
the people of Texas of less value than the
Chinese? You maintain before them that
Texas’ government must be run by money
derived from an institution that raises hell
in the people and in the State, makes wid-
ows and orphans and furnishes the under-
taker employment.
Catechism Question 7—If the pro-
hibition theory regulating what a man
shall drink is correct, will the same
theory and principle apply to what a
man shall eat, what he shall wear,
what songs he shall sing, and what
games he shall play?
Answer—Regulation by prohibition
is the same thing whether it relates to
eating, wearing clothes, playing games,
singing songs, attending church or
drinking.
Pray how much Kentucky moonshine or
Anheueer Busch beer had the author of the
catechism swallowed before he wrote such
tommyrot? This of course refers to “per-
sonal liberty.” They are very much fright-
ened that the personal liberties of the peo-
ple of Texas and the special privilege of
local self government will be denied them.
So anxious are they that the Model License
League of America offqrs from $26 to $60
to an attorney in every county for each
speech made in favor of anti-Statewide.
The home office of this League is in Louis-
ville, Ky. The League is composed of
brewers and distillers of the United States.
What right has this League, entirely out-
side the bounds of the State of Texas, in-
terfering in Texas politics? More especi-
ally when in its home State there are only
19 wet counties. To support anti-State-
wide is to strike, through outside capta-
tion, at the very root of constitutional lib-
erty in Texas. The talk about local self-
government as presented by the anti prohi-
bitionists is merely moonshine. The anti-
Statewide chairman of Freestone, county
admits that he expects some “assistance”
financially from headquarters at Houston,
that he was appointed anti chairman of
this county by Ja)pe Wolters, and he has
never denied the charge of being paid for
making speeches against tbe proposed
amendment. Noyr, voter, where is the lo-
oal self government for Freestone county in
view of these facts?
As to the “personal liberty” they prate
about. Here is its type as set forth in
their own letters: The Harris County Re-
tail Liquor Dealers’ Union in its letter to
the merchants and manufacturers of Hous-
ton, written under cover to those whom
they thought were their friends, says:
“The life or death of our business will de-
pend upon the result” of this election.
When they are behind the screens reaching
out to grab their prey, does the thought of
personal liberty ever strike them? Let us
see. In the same letter they ask, "Will
you request' or REQUIRE every man in
your employ to qualify to vote by paying
his poll tax or getting out his exemption?”
Surely this talks loudly for tbe personal
liberty of the voter when an appeal is
made to the merchants and manufacturers
of Houston whom they think are their
friends to COERCE their employes into
voting anti-Statewide. Now further: The
Retail Liquor Dealers Union of Harris
County, writing to the wholesale liquor
dealers under of January, 1011, makes this
threat: “It was further decided that any
wholesaler who refuses to contribute to
this fund [slush fund to corrupt voters [
need not expect further patronage from the
members of this Union.” What pretty
personal liberty! They threaten to boy
oott one another, and boycotting is illegal.
Not only that, but their demand carries
with it blackmail by reason of the fact that
it is made to extort money from the whole-
saler. Now blackmailing is criminal. So
much for personal liberty of the anti type,
■U
Voters arise in the strength of your manhood and say to the liquor interest of Texas that that the people of Texas shall rule; that Texas has the
right to place in its constitution the proposed amendment prohibiting the sale of intoxicating liquors within its boundaries; and that it has the .
power to enforce its laws, the law defying threats of the liquor interests, constantly made in this campaign, notwithstanding. Say to **— ■-----
interest by your vo|e: “We stand for constitutional liberty in Texas; we stand defenders of our Homes, our Mothers, our Wives, our
we consign to the Hell to which it belongs—The SALOON.’
U Jrr 'JitmSSff- -.f »J,
v- ..ftv. ^ft ft
.4
v -
-
and
>ne
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Satterwhite, T. L. & McDaniel, C. E. The Teague Chronicle. (Teague, Tex.), Vol. 6, No. 1, Ed. 1 Friday, July 21, 1911, newspaper, July 21, 1911; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1046517/m1/2/: accessed June 28, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Fairfield Library.