National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1882-05-13
Mr. Dczcndorf and the Virginia Coali
ttOn,

ton.
We publish this morning letter from
Mr.. Dczendorf, the member of Congress
from the Norfolk (Va.) District. 1t is in
reply to recent editorial in this paper
in which his course was reviewed We
have omitted from il several peulant ex-
pressions which seemed to detract from
its force, and an allusion to California
politics, which we have not space now TO
discuss, even if it were necessary to do
so. 1t is not our purpose to exchange
either smart or bitter words. To Mr..
Dezendorfs complaints, denials, and as
sertions we reply.
First-We think he "made war" upon
the Republican party organization in Vir-
ginia by refusing to support the action of
the Republican State convention last
summer, which made it the duty of
party men to support Cameron, Lewis,
and Blair for the Offices respectively of
governor, lieutenant-governor and at
torney-general.
Second-No man who supported the
Bourbon or regular Democratic ticket
last November or who failed to oppose it
has been appointed to any public Office
or employment whatever upon the rec
ommendation of General Malone.
Third-THE NATIONAL Republican
never has admitted, much less stated,
that Mr.. Dezendorf ever did support the
coalition after it had been entered into
by the Republican party in State conven-
ton assembled. We said "he advocated
the union early in the spring of 1881, but
later withdrew his support" He verifles
our statement in his reply by saying:
Iwroto u letter which appeared in THE Ma.
TioSAL REPUBLICAN, in May, 1881, in which ad.
vocnted n union Of fo ces and detailed plan OF
action which thought would bring about such a
union, and based it all upon the proposition that
the Malone convention "shCuld adopt such n
platform and nominate such candidates as Repub-
leans could support" and never departed from
that letter one iota.
The Malone convention, as Mr.. Dozen.
dorf calls it, did make a platform and did
nominate such candidates as Republicans
could support, for the Republicans who
did not support both (as recommended
| by their own State convention) were
| ilNhNhl'ubiN low III liNlllDSIs lpub Ic
mits that he departed from that letter.
for he says in his letter published to-day
~ ncUer supported he coalition one moment
and euejyJody IN tie State and out Of ii knowS
H."
| Fourth-To accuse General Garfield OF
having opposed the coalition would be to
charge him with perhdy and falsehood.
Fifth-If every county in the Norfolk
| District Except one, which the Bourbons
carried) gave Cameron q majority for
governor, which we understand to be
true, then Mr.. Dezendorf, who opposed
the coalition, must have been beaten in
every county.
SiXth-Our statement that Mr.. Dozen
dorf "now joins in call for q State con-
vention of Republicans, which is wholly
without countenance of the Republican
State committee was made upon what
seemed to us correct information. We
find that we were misinformed, and We
make the only reparation possible by
expressing our regret at the mistake
But while Mr.. Dezendorf has not Joined
in call for such convention, he says:
That there is widespread dissatisfaction with
the existing state Of affairs is undemiabe, and tn,
probability is that it win find expression in some
authorized and significant shape, and in Strcagti
sufficient TO command respect.
The "Straight-out Republicans are
dissatisfied at the success of the coalition
and the Coalition Republicans are dis
satisfied at the union of two Republican
State senators with the Bourbons for the
defeat of the reapportionmentb bill. AsMr
Dezendorf has never been for the coali
ton day, his sympathies must be with
the former.