Mr. Crafts Accuses Speaker Cannon of Blocking Sunday Legislation
By W. A. C.
In an address delivered in the Hamline Methodist Church, of Washington, D. C., Sunday, April 17, Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts accused Speaker Cannon of packing committees in the House of Representatives so that no law “for the protection of the Sabbath” or the promotion of temperance has any chance of passing the House. He said:— “I wish to protest against one aspect of so-called ‘Cannonism’ that has been overlooked by the press; namely, that the Speaker has so constituted the committees that have to do with morals that representatives themselves generally admit no law for the protection of the sabbath or for the promotion of temperance has any chance to pass the House. Since 1889, twenty long years, the Christian citizens of this city have asked Congress to stop needless Sunday traffic and toil. Now, when a law below the average of the Sunday laws of the States has passed the Senate, the House committee holds it up. And they themselves should be held to account if it fails.”—Washington Herald, April 18, 1910. This was a reflection not only upon Mr. Cannon, but upon the members of the committees having measures of this kind in charge. It very naturally, therefore, brought forth some quick responses. At a hearing on a certain resolution before the House District Committee a few days later, Representative Wiley, of New Jersey, said:— “The committee of the District of Columbia frequently comes under criticism from its residents, and while it is one of the hardest-working committees in Congress, receives slight credit for all its labors. In that connection I wish to call attention to another statement made last Sunday in a sermon by the Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, superintendent and treasurer18of the International Reform Bureau, in which he accuses the Speaker of packing the House Committee on the District of Columbia so that ‘no bill seeking to protect the sabbath or aiding the cause of temperance would ever be reported in the House for action,’ and this would be the committee which would report it. “It is a great pity that the reverend gentleman did not ascertain the facts before making this statement, which I publicly criticize as unqualifiedly false and an insult to the intelligence and reputation of every member of the District committee. “Personally, I may say that I asked the Speaker not to put me on this committee, knowing the hard work engendered and the little praise which would come from it; and during my four years’ experience on the committee he has never even asked my opinion on a single subject. “I therefore call upon the Rev. W. F. Crafts, through the press, to either prove his statement or publicly retract it, and silence on his part will naturally lead to the conclusion that either he can not prove the one or is not man enough to retract the other.”—Washington Evening Star, April 23, 1910. Mr. Coudrey, of Missouri, a member of the present House Committee on the District of Columbia, responded as follows, as reported in the Washington Times of April 23:— “In a letter to the minister, Representative Coudrey declared that, as far as his own case is concerned, Speaker Cannon placed him on the District committee without ascertaining his views on any subject, and, since that time, had never, in any form, attempted to influence him on any bill that had come before the committee. “‘In reference to the proposed Sunday law which is before the committee, I don’t know whether Speaker Cannon is for or against it, and your statement reflects on the integrity of the committee,’ said Representative Coudrey. ‘I do know one thing, and that is that I am opposed to the law, and intend to vote against it, and I find twenty-five people in the District opposed to it where I find one for it. “‘From your remarks I am led to believe that you favor the rich and are against the poor. The poor have to work hard for six days, and are not able to belong to country clubs and own automobiles, horses, and carriages. Now, why should they not go and see a game of baseball? It does not interfere with their going to church, and they are entitled to some recreation.’” From these responses it would appear that Mr. Crafts’ accusations against Mr. Cannon are quite unfounded.