Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1897-11-25
Gen. Walkers Letter.

Gen. Walkers Letter.
We again accord zen. Jas. A. Walk |
II space In which to make statement
n regard to the Feagles case. Our last
article if we understand the English
cast no reflection on Gen.
Walker, but was a simple statement OF
what we had heard about Feagles'
general reputation, and why we had
On what we had heard attributed any
of the real character OF
Feagles to Gen. Walker. There is no
shadow of further accusation in it
against him, no fresh intimation OF his
knowing the facts. 1t would have been
IN the highest degree II we
had charged knowledge of Feagles
real character to Gen. Walker without
some foundation for so doing, and we
gave what we had heard about Feagles.
Now Of course Gen. Walker does not
desire or intend to defend the real
character Of Feagles, but only desires
to set the public right as to himself
and as to his k7aoa0zed0e OF that real
character. Gen. Walker said in his
previous letter that he did not know
that Feagles was really man OF bad
character, he said further that he had
never heard anything but that he was
a man of good character. We then
said in our best possible words, that it
makes no difference what Feagles was
Gen. Walker has said over his own
hand that he did not know aught
against him. and that settles 1t. I'VE
accept Gen. Walkers statement, ''and in
accepting it we intended and did &C
cept it in the fullest sense of the term.
We believed after that, that Gen.
Walker was sincere and that he had
been the victim of an unpleasant com
bination of circumstances. The letter
published in todays issue when care
fully read calls for nothing but the
sources of our information as to the
character of Feagles. It is not our
intention to settle the question of his
character through our columns, or
why people suspecting him of theft,
had allowed their suspicious to
slumber and sleep, or OF his endorse
ment by the Republican Committee,
or of Democrats having gone on bis
bond, or in fact why or how Feagles
had gone on in his crime until the
night of his death without actual de-
lection. These relate to Feagles and
not to Gen. Walker. and have no place
and can haYe no place here. But Gen.
Walkers public acts have place. Deni.
al of accusations made by us against
him can always have place, and il
statements made to us have caused III
or the public to impute to him knowl
edge he did not possess, none will be
more ready to correct it. We made nc
fresh imputation nor did we intend OF
attempt to reimpute anything to him
in our last article, and in thinking SC
he wholly misjudges our motives
and misreads our language. We
published what we said last week In
justice to ourselves of course, to show
that we had not manufactured any
thing which related to Feagles death
Having stated then that as Gen. Walk
err said he knew nothing Of Feagles
bad character, we accepted his state
ment unqualifiedly and unequivocally
This as between gentlemen. is all that
could have been expected by him OF
done by us.
If there can be any real fault
found with us it must grow out
of the little item which appeared in
our issue OF the 4th, which contains
the only accusation ever made by III
against him, and which in the light Of
Gen. Walkers first letter we regret
and for which we have attempt
ed TO make due amends. VIZ
submit to a candid public whether
there is one word in last weeks article
which any save the family or friend.
Of Feagles can find to wound in char
acter or reputation, and especial,
whether there is any attempt direct
or indirect to charge Gen. Walker with
any sin of omission or commission.
There is no charge Of his being "tht
friend of known thief" or "know
ingly endorsing thief'and disreputa
BILE character" neither his public mol
private character is assailed therein
there are no infamous" charges con
tanned in the article against him
We did everything Gen. Walker
requisite. of us in his letter Of
last week, and his friend, Hon. Jacob
Yost, who has presented US with both
letters, brought no direct demand fol
names as we understood it. Certainly
none in writing, and we could neither
notice nor answer any other demand
II Gen. Walker then demanded names
his letter should have done so. We
did not kno y fully what Gen. Walker
had written till after Mr.. Yost left
but supposed his letter contained all
he expected as he knew too well the
absurdity OF sending some Of his de
mands in writing and some to be
couched in the words Of his messenger
His letter therefore was the only thing
we regarded In the case or gave the
slightest heed to. We, however, on his
thing tending to reflect on him, over
all lit Is saids," all Thoughts" and
"beliefs," over public opinion" and
madam rumor." We have done
Gen. Walker injustice in our first little
''squib," since then we certainly have
not. We made the amend his letter
called for and all it called for. Having