Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1899-08-11
A REPLY.
To THE DEMOCRATS OF SHENANDOAH
Cor-N-rv.
COUNTY:

COUNTY:
desire to call your attention to
the fact that the Independent or
Rhodes Executive Committee of
Shenandoah comfy, after posing ms
fair politicians, absolutely withheld a
communication from the Regular
Committee in reply to communica-
ton from the Independent or Rhodes
Committee, in order to justify them
selves before the people. l therefore
justice to the regular Democratic
organization have that communica-
ton published, that the people of
Shenandoah county may understand
why the regular organization would
not agree 10 have any further affilia-
ton with the Independent or Rhodes
organization in this county. The fol-
lowing communication was prepared
by subcommittee along the lines in
dicated by the Regular Democratic
Executive Committee of this county.
s. B. Miley's reply to n. VI. Rhodes
Toms Brook, Va. Aug. 5, 80.
To The Democrats of Shenandoah Co.
l regret that it be-
comes necessary for me to enter a
newspaper controversy, but the letter
of n. NJ. Rhodes compells me to re-
ply to his version of the existing
troubles in the party. The letter pro
poses IN the outset, in bold head
lines to give history of the trouble
in Shenandoah. But does it give a
history? To show that it does not, |
only need to quote the third para
graph of his letter which is as follows;
At is not Lccess airy to review the
facts which led up TO the convention
of June 81, 1895 which elected this
committee nor to the subsequent re-
cord of the two committees pnor and
up to the convention of April |, 1899"
You will observe that he admits IN
the beginning of his letter that he
does net give complete history.
Why should it not be necessary to
give history of the circumstances
which led up to his convention of
June p, 1895? The reasons are OBJ
vious. Even their chairman is asham-
eli to record their uuwarranted &C
ton IN boiling the regular committee.
But | am not surprised at Mr.. Rhodes
wanting TO skip this part of the his
terry ofthe trouble, tor he has admit.
cd to more than one party that his
organization wa not regular, and
gave As a reason for not reSlgnlng.
that he feared ). u. Fogle would
succeed him rs chairman and that il
he Foglc) became chairman it would
be more difficult to ret rid of their
organization. But [ am surprised
that lNr. Rhodes should refer Ia the
convention OF June the p, 1895 hay-
inc been endorsed by II member, Of
the regular organization. This Is the
nnlv claim he makes to saiI conveu-
lion being regular lie SlyS: "Anv
imperial tribunal must have j. Id
that the action of the convention of
June 81. 1898 the call for whicl was
endorsed by a regular meeting OF the
old committee. called together by the
committee ihcrrof0yer the signatures
of II ont Of 80 membrrS) endacd
This committee with full authority, rs
the only regular committee OF the
democratic party in this county its
election necessarily terminating the
existence OF the old or Miley COM
mittec as County Executive Com
mittee OF the Democratic Party, and
from that time il existed without
authority or sanction except such rs
the adherence Of portion OF It's old
members conferred upon IT," Let US
review this par Of the history for a
nom mt. -Four members Of the reg
ular committee met in Woodstock
ON June rs. 1898 and issued the call
tnr the convention Ok June u, 1898,
having ONLY four intervening days
between lheir call and their primar-
les. Realizing thai they hadIn found
alton on which to built, they sent
messengers over the county telling
members of the committee tliat it was
necessary to hold Il meeting on June
Ii, IN order to harmonic some troll
bic IN tar party. This WAS done dur