The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-02-22
THE DISPATCH OBJECTS.

r, g. worry considerate, II not kind, OF
the Dispatch TO deal so gently WIN
our answer TO its charges that We had
"betrayed' the Democratic party. but
although the Dispatch finds that 1t is
no answer I'm the proper sense OF the
word and although IT objects 10 H.
we shall neither amend II nor change IL
I'm any respect whatever, and that for
the very simple reason that it was never
a matter of the smallest concern 10
The Times whether the Dispatch wouio
regard its answer either a sufficient or
an unobjectionable one. Since the Dns-
patch had most outrdgeously made the
charge against The Times or having
PLAYED a traitors part TO the Demo
cratic party The Times was determined
that the matter should not rest unth the
Dispatch had stated publicly every grouhu
upon which II founded that charge Inc
grounds being stated, the Times was
concerned only to point out TO the pup
lie how perfectly ridiculous ana abSuiu
they were. and that being done Inc
Times vas perfectly Indifferent =
rbetber The Dispatch was satisfied or
whether It was not.
1,st about as ridiculous and absurd a.
al,thlng else in the Dispatch's connec-
lion with this aftair is its present claim
that The Times gave the cold shoulder
~ Governor OFerrall in the late can
1, NOT a 81
personal defence OF OFerrall against the
cual charges made on him. The
Times fights for principles and not for
men. Colonel O'Ferrall was the nominee
OF the Democratic party, and az such was
the bearer Of the flag of the party. with
The Times all questions relating TO him
perscually were closed when he was made
the rcminee Of the party. From that day
forward The Times knew him not as
OFerrall but as the Democratic stand
ard bearer. 1t used its very best efforts
TO secure the election OF The Democratic
ticket. and it considered that TO he the
line Of its duty and not personal wrangles
over matters that Iertained TO the IN
dividual OFerrall alone. The Dispatch
l. ay think personal discussions the pro
vince of political journals. The Times
thinks that extreme cases alone can JUS
tify them, and then only when the indi-
viduality Of tie person is inseparaby
co. rected with advocacy of the cause.
The Times. had had no part whatever
in nominating Colonel O'Ferrall, and none
of the responsibilities for his nomination
rested, therefore, upon 1t. Its response
biities began and ended with loyalty to
the Democratic ticket as nominated. and
The Times is perfectly willing TO rest its
claim to that upon the record which 1t
made during the canvass, which is be
fore the world
But it is truly amusing 10 hear the Dis
patch talk of the late canvass preceding
the election as "O'Ferrall's great strug
gle" At what point did the struggle
take place? was il in the effort Of the 500
Democratic voters in Colonel OFerralfs
district to stay at home? Was it in the
effort of the thousands of other Demo
Gratis all over the state to stay at home?
Or was it in the effort Of the officers of
election at Smithers precinct to make
III Democrats cast 49S votes? The effort
involved here was really too trfiing TO
raise it to the dignity of great sirug-
Gle" even in the mind of journal which
believes that the Anderson McC ormick
law sis a white mans law that operates
to perpetuate the rule Of the white man."
\ great struggle indeed. when the
strugglers had Smither's and Petersburg
and Portsmouth and Newport News
and returning boards. and all such things
TO rely on! Why the majority was limit
ed to 10000 we cannot imagine. We don't
see why It was not made 100000 When
Warren Hastings had been charged with
his gigantic spoliations in India he re-
piled, when think OF my opportunities,
1 am amazed OF my moderation
So we are totally amazed at our mod
Grafton. Fifty thousand is disgraceful TO
us when we could just as easily have
made it half million.