Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-04-22
Captain Binford Replies to the Times.
RICHMOND. VA, April 20. 1884.

To the Editor Of the Dispatch:
My card in the Dispatch defending our
county chairman Mitchell. from what 1
deemed an uncalled for and unjust i'm
putation on the part Of the Richmond
Times. has called forth lengthy editorial
from this journal, which I propose herein
10 answer briefly and cOurteousiy. | am
insensible of "a feeling Of exaggerated
Consequence" in connection with the honor
/ have of being the representative from
the noble county Of Henrico, and the
charge comes with bad grace from
self-constituted guardian Of the IN
tegrity of the Democracy Of virginia.
While my defence was Of Mr.. Mitchell
az the chairman Of the County Commit
tee. Of course the implication was PLAIN
that ] desired, as an humble citizen. and
as the Legislative representative OF the
county, and the Democratic Standard
bearer. to raise my voice in condemna-
ton Of the unjust imputation in general
Mr.. Mitchell himself is my friend ana
neighbor. and under his leadership old
Henrico has been redeemed and olsen
thraIled from the bondage Of negro rule
and. instead Of negro officers. our people
now deal with their white fellow-citiZens
in all legal matters. Moreover, my own
son is a Judge Of election at one precinct
and though | say it, his character ..
a citizen Of integrity and as Christian
gentleman is too high to be placed IN
the category of "heelers." 1t will not
DO for the Times to deny attacking MI
Mitchell and his co-workers. because.
forsooth, it did not openly charge
them with specific acts OF usury
doing. The charge was aiding and abet-
90
unfair and unjust. and the whole tenor
Of the article bore a color Of imputatlen
which required no "Optlcs keen TO ween
II is as If the Times charged Mr.. Mitchell
with being a party TO loading gun
which. in the nature of the case, was
manifestly loaded for the purpose or UNI
Just killing, and upon being rebuked re-
plies 1--WE didn't say he was going 10
do the killing! But as matter OF iact'
after all the hullabaloo raised by the
righteous voice Of the Times. absolutely
no case has been made against Mr..
Mitchell. nor has the Times been able
"to point a moral or adorn n tale The
worst the Times can make OF the circuln-
stance upon which such great stress is
laid is right along the line OF IT'S own
idea of the fitness of things as expressed
in its sentiment that ii was perfectly
natural for the Democratic party To de-
sire and claim two Of the three repre-
sentatives Of the board! 1T is pertinent
to inquire If this is an advantage and
a legitimate advantageous the Times I'M
plies-wherein is the oblOquy attaching
to a like advantage-to put the case
strongly-in desiring Republicans accept
able TO the majority Of the board. or the
representatives in general OF the party,
If you please. rather than those desired
by the other side?
IN hp
Times's holy horror 7 will even assume
for the argument (and merely for sake
OF argument. mark it, that the worst
phase the "Virtuous Thunderer" can put
upon the matter is correct. and that Mr.
Mitchell and his associates deliberately
planned to preserve the political auto
Monty Of the county in the hands of the
Democracy. or white people. by means
inconsistent with the expressed letter and
spirit OF statute-law.
Now, has not the Times been brought
TO bay i'm its wild career Of bowling for
virtue and law and order in ballot de-
posting and counting by having TO con-
fcss that 1t would never be willing to
see IL county ruled by negroes. and If
necessary would endorse and justify
physical violence TO thwart such an end?
And has IT not said. when pressed 10
honesty in elections were put forth with
the view to preventing fraud among our
selves"-i. e.. the white people?
Now, If we may depart from the paths
of absolute. even-handed. mln-to-man-
without racial. intellectual, or any other
distinction-blnd justice as contained in
the statutes regarding suffrage ana equal
rights. etc, and by brute force preserve
the reign OF respectabili,y and intelll-
gence. wherein comes in the grave moral
obloquy of taking peaceable advantages
to accomplish the same end, thus pre-
venting force and physical strife?
Doesn't the Times plainly see even 1t Is
proceeding on the policy lne?' Hon
esty is the best policy is its motto. be-
cause II we cheat the other fellow
IL will recoil on ourselves But the truth
is as before stated in the case in point
the most that can be said from the stand
point of the Guardian" Is that Mr..
Mitchell and associates preferred accept
ing all the natural and legitimate adj
vantages they could secure, and II they
had acted otherwise they would have
been guilty of a stupid generalship, not
characteristic OF political parties, armies,
or newspapers.
The Times may be etymologically Dem
ocratic-that IL, Il la Times's conception
but II Is out of harmony with the great
Democratic party Of Virginia, and using
its own phrase. this Is a conclusion
which any man. however limited his in
telIigence, can see IS authorized by the
facts"
Finally, let me say. / have no desire
for newspaper controversies. They gem
orally result in no good. And am aware
OF the serious disadvantage man is
subjected to in discussing with an editor
who has space unlimited and Is paid for
his services along that line / have no
newspaper TO boom by sensational ar
ticles. and ! have only appeared In this
matter In defence Of as noble a constitu-
ency as graces this dear old Common
wealth. being unwilling TO let even
seeming imputation upon the peers of
any people. anywhere. pass openly un-
condemned. And here the matter ends
as far as I am concerned. with good
will TO all and malice toward none. and
disclaiming any intention In this article
TO be personally offensive To the gentle
men OF the Times.
am. respectfully. w. J. RiNEORD.