Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1893-06-19
Mr.. Alexander's Reply to Col. O'Fer-
rail-

in your issue of yesterday let me say
that while in his open letter of June 81,
published in your paper, he states as
to the charge "that ran for Congress
as an independent candidate in 1874,
this is false" when drew the proof on
him he admits the charge TO be true, and
his denial of June Sd to be false. Fat-
sus IN urO fdlsus IN omnibus"
He was an Independent candidate for
Congress again in 1874 against the reg
ular democratic nominee, and from Au-
gust l, 1874, until the Goth OF October,
1874, again.
Nor does he deny the other charges
in my letter-such as his betrayal OF
confidence, causing me to Withdraw
from the congressional contest last
year.
Abandoning the issues he made him
self, he seeks to hide behind and draw
attention to side issues which are equal
ly as false. Let me say | have never
at any time made any charge against
O'Ferrall which was not done over my
signature. The articles signed "a
Democrat" were declared to be writ
ten by me in the same paper in which
was printed two weeks before Colonel
O'Ferrall's first card. 'Hayseed Dem
ocratD was never denied, and the edl-
tor of the paper was directed to give
my name to any one who applied.
In none of these articles, however,
are there charges against O'Ferrall: 1t
is true I quoted part of that speech OF
his we have been hearing for twelve or
fourteen years, including part OF SEN
ator Vance's speech on the tariff pub
lished eighteen or twenty years ago.
No one knows better than Col. OFFER
raj that his charge that / attacked him
anonymously is a base and wilful false
hood.
However unsavory Colonel OFFER
RAILS private record may or may not
be, have never attacked it, but con-
fined my exposition to his political re-
cord. While prior to 1891 | had heard
| that he had once run as an independent
candidate for Congress, knew moth.
ing about the particulars and did not
condone his political crimes. He did
not live in our district. My conliden-
tial letters were written him in his IN
fcreSf, referring to how individuals
stood to him, how they were acting,
how to get delegates for him and Sc
cure his nomination, and who were
his friends and could throw no light
whatever upon the truth or falsity of
the charges | subsequently made
against his political record, and the on
w object he could have had and the
only effect of publishing them was
to cause ill-feeling between some OF
my fellow-townsmen and myself. 1t
was base and inexcusable piece OF
treachery to friendship. He admits
"they were received by me (him) in
the confidence of friendship" trusting
to his honor that their contents should
never be disclosed. The betrayal OF
confidence is dishonorable, and no hon.
orable man could be induced by per-
suasion, threat, or force to do dlshon-
orable act.
He further states that the cause of
my ceasing to be his friend was be
cause he declined to recommend me
for United States District Attorney,
etc. Colonel O'Ferrall kno,rS that
this is not true. Parts of the contiden-
tial letters of mine published, and
others in his possession, show | never
made application for the office. My
friend were urging me to apply and
wrote him that before l decided wheth-
err would epply or not | wanted to
know if he was committed. Colonel
OFerrall knows that have in my pos
session proof of these facts, as
well as the facts that he was commit
ted to Captain Baumgardner, of Staun-
ton, and at that time was advising me
to press my candidacy for the office.
He knows that while he said he was
satisfied l would reflect credit upon the
position, that l can prove that | never
applied for the office, but that he voted
for Judge Allen, who never asked his
support or endorsement, deserving Cap
tain Baumgardner.
Colonel O'Ferralll knows that
never complained or had cause to COM
plain for his not endorsing me for United
States District Attorney, or any other
office. He does know, however, that l
lost confidence in and never had any
thing to do with him after he violated
his oft-repeated promises in regard to
Mr.. John r. Edwards and Mr.. J. w.
TAYLOR, who lived in this city, and
when I discovered the cause of the
breaking Of the promises, my want of
confidence turned to contempt. Col.
O'Ferrall seems to think that the qucs-
ton asked in one of my cards of last
year, "Was his name put on the Grant
ticket with his knowledge and con-
sent?" was charge that lit was put there,
and that his statement chat whose
ever charges that it was put there with
his knowledge and consent utters a
base, wilful, wicked, and malicious
falsehood, relieves him Of all response
bility and is shelter under which he
can rest. Let me say if priority is
what the colonel relies on, that on May
u. 1892, wrote Colonel O'Ferrall a
letter. and about one week later pub
lished it, in reply to a published card
by him charging combination be-
tween General Rosser and myself in
Washington city to defeat him for Con-
gress, in which letter l said "that the
person who intimates that in that con-
versation or at any other time 1 made
any combination with General Rosser
is guilty of malicious .falsehood."
Again, on July 4, 1892, in published
card over my signature, circulated
throughout the district, branded
O'Ferrall as dishonest in announcing
political connection he did not enter
tain and that he had been a traitor to