Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-11-17

emphatic terms SQulnted at tne Dloou-
shedding policy.
But the fact that the Times recently
published an editorial eulogy OF Mark
Hanna, throws even greater light upon
what It considers honest election"
methods Never has the suffrage I'm Nir-
ginia been so debauchod as 1t was during
the last campaign. More than hundred
thousand dollars was spent by Hanna
In this STATED Where did it go? Who
got It? what was it spent for? In our
belief. much OF 1t was paid out as brides
10 voters and to men who could control
voters. In short. IT was put where it was
thought Il would do the most good
IL even appears that Squire Vincent dis
tlnguished for his connection with the
Smithers Precinct investigation, has been
charged in his own court with having been
In the employment OF our opponents du-
ring the campaign; but whether of Cen
oral Iogan's forces or Waddill and
Brady's we know not
Hanna's money bought right and left,
not only in Virginia. but throughout the
United States. and yet here we have had
the Richmond Times. which claims TO be
a radical Democrat" eulogizing him as a
mighty patriot.
However, we must take It for granted
that the News and Courier knows the
record of the Times on this subject and
the Times doubtless knows something
OF the post-bellum history Of South
Carolina-whence we conclude that the
two papers are jollying one another.
The Times's election figures and its
deductions therefrom we cannot con-
sent TO accept as correct Upon its edi-
toral page Sunday. there appears a
big table. credited in an inconspicuous
way to THE Outlook" giving the results
Of the elections in each Of the States.
There Bryan's Virginia majority is put
down as 1900. This IS so far from being
correct; this IS so unjust to us. we can
not but entertain much doubt as to the
accuracy Of all the figures we see in the
Times. Bryans plurality in Virginia is
nearly 10000. SO. If in giving an account Of
Bryans plurality in this State twenty
five per cent. error is permitted to pass.
we may reasonably conclude that we
may find other such blunders in other
of the Times's publications Later on.
when the returns are all in. we hope
that they will be the subject Of impartial
analysis, and then we should not be
surprised if they showed that Bryan's
total vote in Virginia was about as large
as Cleveland's was in 1882, and that
the so-called "losses" in the white
counties are in the main-in the main, we
say-traceable to the work Of Hanna,
and Hanna's agents.
And now, inasmuch as we opened this
article with an extract which the Times
said that we wouldn't publish, we shall
take occasion to close it with one which
we doubt if the Times will publish-to
wit. an editorial from the last issue Of the
Northern Neck News-as follows:
The Richmond Times. whilst protest
ing more than ever that it is a Demo
cratic journal is constantly harping
upon what it speaks of as the election
methods of the Democrats of Virginia.
/ 1t has no word Of condemnation for the
methods employed TO debauch the man.
hood Of the INDECENT voter at the recent
election. 1t Is fully cognizant Of the
fact that gigantic sums of money were
expended by the sO-called honest-money
people to bride the voters Of Virginia, and
that spies were employed by them and
sent out into the various counties of the
State for the purpose Of ascertaining
which. If any. Of the officers of the cleo
| ton could be purchased. IT IS entirely
aware OF the fact that a wholesale and
| systematic attempt was made to buy the
election in Virginia; and, whilst in
Weighing against imaginary frauds on the
! part of Democrats, il is as silent as the
! tomb in regard to the detestable, I'M
moral, and illegal methods which it knows
we're employed by the combination which
I II aided materially i'm organizing, and
| which had it been successful. would
have placed the people Of Virginia under
/ negro domination. 1t has attempted TO
| show that the Democrats lost votes in
| the white and hitherto Democratic coun-
| ties. and made gains in the black
| districts. as compared with the vote OF
! 1892: and among the counties selected
/ by il TO prove this charge are three or
| four i'm this congressional district. An
! ANALYSIS Of the vote in this district shows
that This contention IS not true. The
white counties OF Aocomac. Mathews,
| Northumberland King and Queen, and
the city of Fredericksburg at the last
! election gave Mr.. Jones, for Congress,
| 27l6 majority The two first-named
| counties have always been reliably and
| largely Democratic. and the other two
! have usually been safely Democratic IN
national elections. so that We're the
vote in the remainder Of the district dis
! regarded altogether. Mr. Jones would
| still have a handsome majority. But
! Northampton. which for long time was
regarded as a Republican county, gave
the Democratic nominee for Congress in
| 1892 more than double the majority II
| gave him i'm 1896, showing conclusively
| that his present majority was not at
/ tributable to the election law now in
! force. If the Times wishes to prove its
| case II should get its figures from some
/ other district than the First