The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1880-12-16
HARRIsoNBuRe, Va, Dec. 9th, 1880.

Editors Of the VaOey FSrgiaasan I'm the last
issue of your paper you publish my commun
cation, and also an editorial criticism of it
which am perfectly willing to let go along
side by side, and am only moved to write these
few lines to correct what seems to be misap-
prehenslon on your part.
| You conclude your editorial headed Jus
tice" with these words ''all we want is for them
to act from their convictions and leave us free
to do the same. This we propose to do in the
future, as We have done in the past, and no
array OF names or badly arranged figures, will
cause us to hesitate"
| NOW l don't choose to be put in the position
OF one who has, in any manner, shape, or form,
attempted to interfere with your Convictions y
or those OF any one else; and how such an
Idea could have made a lodgment in your
mlnd am at loss to understand. Now let
us see what was the state of the case. You
had asserted editorially that the attempt to
turn over the republican vote of the State to
Hancock was part of the same scheme which
defeated republican nomination in this dis
trlct Alter waiting reasonable time to see
| II you would qualify your assertions, / wrote
short communication for your paper showing
as l think conclusiyely, that the scheme to
turn over the republican vote to Hancock and
English was not supported by the same men,
ner was 1t part ut the same seherue as was
the effort to prevent a republican nomination
in this district
strenuouslY and effectually opposed the trans
fer OF our votes to the Hancock and English
readJuster electors were the same persons who
were most Influential in defeating republ-
can nomination at Charlottesville Now ask
In all candour, is there in this any attempt to
Interfere with, or coerce anybody's convic-
lions! Was it not rather an attempt to give
my own convictions and the reasons for those
convictions?
l also adduced the official figures to show that
the Judgment of those who had opposed
nomination had been fully gSnt7scsted And by
the-Way just one word as to your sneer about
the BADLY arranged figures" 1t is true that
did not take the least trouble about the ar
rangement of those figures, because / knew
that no possible arrangement could either add
to or take from the overwhelming force of
those official figures I thought that all had
to do, in order to vindicate those who opposed
nomination, was simply to produce the fig
ures-no matter in what order, or how ar
ranged-total vote in district q, 73s republi-
can vote 1857
NOW Messrs Editors, am perfectly willing
to let-not my opinion-but the official figures,
offset your conjectures as to what might have
been the vote, if a certain thing had been done
But to show what was really the effect of not
running candidate in this district, and of
running them in other districts, would state
that in the list, 3d. 3d. 4th, 9Th and 9th we had
candidates and our UOte absolutely fell off Except
in the second, where for the first time in
good many years we got fair COUNT while in
this district where we had no candidate, there
aods staght increase, Notwithstanding the large
number disfranchised by the poll tax restric- !
ton. SO much for the policy of running re- |
publican candidate in each district, no matter |
whether we had chance to elect him or not |
Now Messrs. Editors let me assure you (of |
what seems to me perfectly plain from the az |
tlcle itself) that | had no idea of criticising |
your course in advocating nomination, or Of |
attempting IN the remotest degree to interfere |
with your convictions"
The case stood thus you had charged that |
those who opposed nomination at Char
lottesville, were engaged in carrying out |
scheme to disorganize the republican party; |
made no counter charge, but only attempted |
to defend them from the charge. If had |
charged that those who like yourself, favored |
nomination, did so in order to aid the Bour-
bon democracy, and not in the interest of the |
republican party, then | could see that you |
would have had good grounds to make ntinla-
ton above alluded to.
There is one other point in your editorial |
upon which l wish to say word. | asserted |
that DIR. Niche, Senator Early, Mr. Porter Mr.
blcKie, Mr w. Y. Gray, DR.. Points, Mr. Bolts, |
and Hon. }. F. Lewis were opposed to any
nomination being made at Charlottesville. In
commenting upon this you say some of those
parties may or may not have done So" Now
all OF those gentlemen except Mr.. Bickle, Mr.
Gray and Mr.. Bolts were in the Charlottesville
convention and voted against any nomination.
Now heard MIR. Bickle, on the streets OF
Harrisonburg, in the presence of another gen.
tleman, ridicule the idea OF the republicans
electing Congressman from this district Mr.
Gray was earnestly and openly opposed to any
nomination.
Mr.. Bolts opposed it, in view of the state of
affairs existing prior to and at the time the
convention met
make this explanation, because am not
in the habit of stating things as facts without
know them to be facts
Respectfully
JUSTICE.