Jasper County Democrat, Volume 13, Number 53, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 October 1910 — DODGED LIQUOR QUESTION. [ARTICLE]

DODGED LIQUOR QUESTION.

Senator Beveridge's Reply to Hanly , Is Not Satisfactory. The only time the liquor question was put up to Senator Beveridge he won further claim to his title as an “artful dodger" by side-stepping the issue completely. This occurred when he received a letter from J- Frank Hanly. former Governor of Indiana. Mr. Hanly, who is much interested in the option law, desired to learn Senator Beveridge's attitude on the question. Fearing that a letter might “miscarry'’ in the United States mails, he gave it to S; E. Nicholson, of Indiana, who delivered it personally to Senator Beveridge in Washington, just before the adjournment of the last Congress. Mr. Ni.bolson secured Senator Beveridge's reply and gave it to Mr. Hanly. In his lette? Mr. Hanly asked the following questions and received from Senator Beveridge the following replies: “Are you in favor of the repeal of the county option law in Indiana?” Senator Beveridge said. “No."

The second question was: “If the Republicans elect a Legislature and you are returned to the Senate. will you use your influence to prevent the repeal of the county option law?” Senator Beveridge dodged. He said: “During my career as a public man and as a member of the Senate I have never meddled with the affairs of the Indiana Legislatur or attempted to influence legislation ih- -•* Temperance people throughout the State find very little consolation in Senator Beveridges answers. Mr. Hanly has not expressed. himself publicly upon the subject, but it is believed by his friends that he is not pleased. It is pointed out that by his answers Senator Beveridge has clinch-ed-the points made by Governor Marshall in his first speech of the campaign. He charged that the liquor plank was omitted from the Republican State platform because it was regarded as “dangerous"—and in order to piay the game both ways, arguing wet in wet counties and dry in dry counties.

If Senator Beveridge was sincere in saying that he was not in fa voir of repealing the county option law, why did he not say so in the Republican State platform which he himself wrote? This is the question now being asked by temperance advocates. Again they are disappointed in his answer to the second question. If he is opposed to the repeal of the law he should support his belief in it, they argue.