Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1895-07-02

4
resourceful brain, or elsewhere, and you
the obstetriciap; but which distinction
YOU are now generously sharing with
others; and when you say the condl-
tions have much improved, we point to
the symptoms and ask for better ply
sician.
Your attack upon the Judges, mag
istrates, constables, commemorative
attorneys, sheriffs, and divers sundry
grand and petit iuries" we pass for the
| present, as you are simply staggering
around desperately hitting at every
bodv in sight and blaming the others
while fourishing the Davy Crockett
idea
The extract you quote from the
Mushbach law reads very well, but we
have not changed our minds in regard
to it in the slightest degree since first
reading it. 1t simply brings together
a crowd of old gamblers under the COW
er of law after which they can-take
care Of themselves and carry on the lit
tie games enumerated.
Your statement that the Mushbach
law is unobjectionable is good. No
wonder friend who knew you urged
you not to make any reply to the Jour
nal. He knew very well that out OF
your own mouth you would stand con-
demned. You then proceed to tell US
how it all happened, by charging that
the whole House and Senate were as
much to blame as yourself. So it would
seem to man not familiar with the
facts; but one moment, sir. Did you not
90 to Judge Nicol, then member of
the House, with your bill, and when he
| told you that he was too busy to take
| it in hand, did you not assure him that
it was all right? And upon your as
surance to him did he not consent to
support it? Was this not your method?
We protest that the attempt to boil
ster a weak cause by dragging in the
names OF Hon. 9. E. Nicol, of Prince
William, Hon. Jos. E. Willard, of Fair
fax county, and others is unwarranted.
So far as this controversy is concerned,
Capt. Mushbach has only to deal with
| the Journal.
Oh no, sir; you are not "the most ac-
complished and miraculous diplomat OF
the age" You might pass for lobbyist
who had, after accomplishing his work,
not only succeeded in getting both feet
in it, but all four feet and then topped
his ears.
We pass on. You make an attack
upon ga certain Washington news
paper.n This indiscriminate charge, in
it's unfairness, is worthy of you. Why
did you not do the other papers and
the public the justice to say to what
newspaper you refer? This is where
you Topped your ears.
On account of the alleged act of this
certain Washington newspaper" you
insinuate against the press generally, as
if one Washington newspaper constitut-
ed the press; and then you express
hopes of being more successful this
time. We presume the press generally
will congratulate you on your present
success. If we mistake not you were
successful few years ago in little
newspaper article in which the Lou
doun Enterprise made note of in passing.
We are we'll aware that politicians of
your school are not on the best terms
with the press; but the press of the
country goes right ahead. now and then
doing up political Ixion in classic style.
We pass to the next paragraph. By
your own statement the bill was passed
only II days before the close of the
session, which shows at once that the
measure was hurried through, sustain
ing the explanation of gentlemen who
say they supported the bill upon your
assurance ofits being all right, they not
, uay ying time to examine it, on account
OF other bills on the calendar which
their constituencies expected them to
pass.
We apologize to our readers for the
publication of the next paragraph of
your reply. Why it was dragged in by
you only your own fertile brain could
tell. 1t was certainly foreign to the
discussion and foreign to our affairs.
We're you simply enraged or-what ?
We beg to assure the Board of Trade of
Washington that we would not have
published such an indiscriminate charge,
but for the fact that we wanted Capt.
Mushbach to do his own showing up,
and while we had him in the ring we
simply let him have the rope; besides,
he might have claimed that we had not
| treated hlm 1alrly.
In the next paragraph he makes
confession; and then without any prov
ocation whatever, so far as the Journal
is concerned, under the cover Of left
hand compliment, proceeds to assail
the official conduct of Judge Chiches-
ter. First to his confession. Bear in
mind the position this would.be Sena-
tor takes.
He voted for and still endorses the
excise bill of Alexandria county.
He would change our license system;
take it out the hands of our county
| judges, and put it in the hands of an
excise board This is the position of the
man who has Fairfax county solid (?).
Now to his attack upon the official
conduct of Judge Chichester. Judge
Chichester needs no defense. He is
one of the purest and best men that
ever served Fairfax county, and we
respectfully ask him to ignore Captain
Mushbach's desperate splurge.
And now, dear sir, you say you will
resume this discussion, if we feel like
keeping it up. Let us beg to assure
you that if you will only quiet your
nerves and not go hitting about wildly
at everything in sight, like an enraged
bull in china shop, we shall be de-
lighted to have you finish up your
campaign to our satisfaction.
The history of the attempt on my
part to break up lawlessness in Alex
apdria county," is good LET us make