Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-09-20
sor WEI ANsWEnED.


The Richmond Times is exceedingly UNI
fortunate In it's SMILES. as witness 's
reference in its issue OF yesterday I"
Arabs and their building their huts upon
the sites OF ancient cities Our neisnoor
cravIs QUE from beneath the debris OF its
own ruinous record, under which the Dis
match Of the day before buried II. to erect
n house cards defence against the Dis
patch-or, rather. we ought TO say against
itself.
The Times claims that its record. IS
published in the Dispatch OF Friday Is
conclusive proof that 1t Is not liable to
take part with south-haters. or, az we
understand the Times-for its language
is "A little ambiguous-is proof that II
cannot be associated with South-haters
Let us see. We have no desire TO Judge
the Times except by its own record we
have no desire to judge 1t. except out Oh
It's own mouth. We have no desire. and.
indeed, see no occasion. to 90 further than
TO apply its own logic TO its case.
The Times says It has not one word TO
retract or abate OF what the Dispatch
quoted from its columns on Friday IL,
therefore, holds that in 1922 the Republi-
can party was a party that would "con-
troll elections in the South by bayonets
and budgeons. and restore negro supre-
macy" and that 1t was party Of such
men as Ben Butler and Ben HARRISON
the latter still prominent and Influential
L.. tt. ID hA
fasten upon Virginia the ''chains OF bayo-
net rule and negro dominat;on"-that is
a party Of South-haterg. The Times
is the avowed champion Of Mr.. NJ. +.
ingalls,, president OF the Chesapeake and
Ohio railway; Mr.. ingalls, is an avowed
champion Of Mckinley. the Republican
candidate for President, and Mckinley IS
on record as an ayowed champion OF
force-bill legislation.
If the Times would escape from the po-
sition in which it is placed by its own
logic, 1t must prove that the Republican
party-the party OF "atrocious doctrines,
to use it's own words OF few days ago
Is an example Of the power OF transform
ing grace never before known in politics.
1t must prove that that party has in
four short years been entirely regener-
ated. and has eradicated from Itself the
venom against the South with which II
has been impregnated ever since its birth,
and upon which in large part 1t has ex-
listed
Has the Times done this? No. Ia Its
issue Of yesterday ii takes up the cudgels
for the Republican platform and McKin-
ley, when it says that that platform
makes no allusion 10 force bill, ana
that "in his letter Of acceptance Mr. Nc
Kinley expresses his sentiments towards
the South in terms which should satisfy
any reasonable man that the troubles OF
reconstruction days are ended" But what
proof is this that the Republican party
of to-day is not the same Republican
party it was four years ago? None what
ever. The Times simply places against
the thirty years south-hating policy of
the Republican party an omission from
the platform of that party, and a few
honeyed woras OF McKinley's, which omis-
sion was made and which words were ut
tered in the hope of catching southern
votes. We ask the Times to answer Sc
riously, does it believe that this IS proof
that the Republican leopard has changed
its spots?
And now as to what we may term the
second division Of the Timess article.
Our contemporary says it believes that
the utter and overwhelming defeat Of Mr..
w. j. Bryan, and what he now stands
for, Is essential TO the preservation Of
the influence and power of the Democratic
party. If that is intended as an answer
to our closing categorical question OF
Friday, we insist that II does not answer
IL. But the Times wires in and wires
ont so much In its article, and makes so
many irrelevant digressions, that perhaps
ii really thought 1t had answered US.
We, therefore, give II the benefit OF
doubt. and repeat our question: Is not
the Times in this contest fighting TO de-
feat William Jennings Bryan. the ma
tional Democratic candidate for the presl-
dency, and does the Times not know that
BryHn's defeat would result in the cleo
ton of William Mckinley, a South hater,
and a Republican?
We respectfully ask a categorical
answer. for our own enlightment and
the enlightenment Of the public.