The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-12-08
NEWCOMER
Confederate Iufantrymen.

Editor OF The Times:
ST. have just read with much pleas
ure the account Of Mr.. Moynihans statue
OF a Confederate infantryman. published
in your edition Of the 9th instant. Judg-
ing from the picture you give. and your
description of the figure it is a work Of
merit. 1t might have been taken from
life.
VIII you permit one Of Lees Mlsera-
bles." who knew the original OF that
bronze soldier thoroughly 10 correct one
error In your description. You say his
trousers are tucked into a pair OF leg
gngs. and they. in turn, are gathered
into the tops Of his shoes
Ny dear sir. tho artist has his infantry
mans socks pulled up over his trousers.
and IL Is true TO life But few COnfed-
crate foot soldiers wore legginss OF any
sort. while the larger number, when on
tho march especially. would confne their
pantaoons at the ankle by pulling up
over them their home-knit socks. made
Of coarse wool or cotton yarn. Thus
equipped. they were hard TO head and
Pope. with his headquarters in the sad
die" and "Od Joe Hooker in the Wilder.
ness" found 10 their sorrow how success-
fully they could execute flank movements.
Very respectfully.
I'D HOWITZER OF '62 TO '65.
Sutherlin, Va, Dec. |. 1891
The Foster Pct ton.
Editor Of The Times:
Sir.-The writer of the article in regard
10 the crime for which spiler Foster
was convicted. and for which he is now
serving a sentence OF seventeen years.
seems to be misnformed as 10 the facts
in the case.
The crime for which young Foster was
convicted was committed at New River.
in Pulaski county. upon the person of
w. L. Brown. April o. 1892. No petition
has been circulated I'm the vicinity where
the murder was committed. asking for
executive clemency. nor is the sentiment
In favor of his pardon.
The Foster family moved from this
place shortly after the killing Of Brown.
and, not TO our knowledge, has Mrs. Fos-
ter been In the county with petition.
The object OF this is simply to give the
proper location where the crime was COM
mitted, and where tried. all OF which oc-
CURED in Pulaski county. and not ia Bote-
tOurt county, as set forth By the article
referred 10. r. ID. HUDSON.
New River Depot. Va. Dec. /, 1897.
Editor OF The Times:
Sir:-I read in The Times OF November
18th your editorial headed Prohibition
Tested 1 wish to offer a little friendly
criticism.
live forty miles from Front Royal
Did not know II was a dry town" until
| read your editorial, and am not ac-
quainted with the editor o.. the Ncgistcr.
or any Of the town or county officials.
Front Royal therefore Is only used as
an example to illustrate a general princi-
pie
FIrst-"Prohbition" In this case is a
msnomer. II should have been local op-
ton. The state Of things described as
existing in Front Royal does not prove
Prohibition a failure. but proves the need
OF Prohibition. under which such "A state
OF things would be impossibls.
The Register does not show that local
option has failed because the law is not
sustained by public sentiment or enforced
by the authorities but because IT not 80
framed as 10 protect the community from
the smuggling into Of intoxicants from
adjoining communities through the con-
tinucd 'manoeuvres" Of stage drivers and
lazy negroes"
II the traffic i'm intoxicants IS an unmit-
igated evil. which cannot be denied IL IS
more 10 the credit Of q community for II
10 be carried on IN defiance Of law than
under the sanction Of law and with all
the safeguards OF law thrown around the
traffic" Law abiding. self-respectlng cit
liens will not be destroyed by II. but only
the crowd OF lazy negroes" and white
people who are not above "manoeuvring'
10 evadc the law.
Is 1t not better that murder. however
FREQUENT. should be committed In def
ance OF law. than sanctioned by law. and
with all the Safeguards Of the law
thrown around It. whatever that may
mean?
w r. D. MONCURE
Ieetown. W. Va. Dec !, 1897.