Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1900-09-07
AN EXPLANATION.

An eAflANAll ION.
IL THE SPECTATOR Of the 10th of
August the following editorial ~
'ea.ed
WHOSE CHOICE IS HUBBARD
Some Republican journals are ask.
ug, was Flood the choice Of the people
If the 10Th district? If not, they say,
his nomination was Imperialism.
Let US ask pray what kind of NOM
nation was Hubard's? Was he the
choice Of any body but himself and the
office holding ring who dictated his
He was not nominated
with any idea that he would be, or
could be elected. He was made the
the people believe, simply |
to choke off Mr.. Yost, the only man
who had ghost of show for election |
il nominated. HUBBARD is stool pig
con and nothing more. He moves
like puppet when the strings are
pulled. He is not strong man in his |
own county. and very few people know
or care anything about him in jany
other part of the district, and especially
in Augusta. where his negro loving
qualities do not set well on the white
stomach, even if he had no other traits
10 condemn him in Democratic eyes
and nose. We hear he will get some
Democratic votes in Augusta, but we
nave not heard it from any very reli
able source, and would scarcely believe
it ii the statement were made Oh oath.
The kind Of Democratic votes he will
get in Augusta will be given by such
g1Od and loyal Democrats rs JAS. Strib
ling, Willis Carter, ParsOn Williams,
and their white brethren who hold all
the Offices or expect to hold them all.
He will, We admit, get large majority
OF such Democratic votes as these, but
no others will he get. Real Democrats
do not train in that kind of company.
On the 22nd, a letter dated the 22nd,
was received by US from Mr.. Hubbard
In the following words:
Boiling, Va, Aug. %, 1900.
The StauntOn Spectator or its Man.
aging Editor, Staunton. Va:
Dear Sri read OIL reaching home
last night an extract published in the
Old Dominion Sun of Friday last) of
what purpOrts to be On editorial in the
last previous issue OF your paper,
which was defamatOrY and 1ibellOus of
me. to q degree. which seems to pre-
clude the idea that the writer Is gen.
tleman. Such an article as no honor
able journal should allow in its sditO-
rial columns; such an article as, il
correctly quoted. must demand the
withdrawal of in unqualified terms. l
wrote your paper plainly last canvass,
that could not aud would not SUBJ
nit to reflections On my character.
Those who insist on making them will
me with the name and address of the
ritter of the article.
Respectfully,
ROBERT T. HUBARD.
On the same day we wrote and per-
sonally mailed to Col HUBBARD at Boil
ling, Va, a letter in the following
words
Staunton, Va, Aug. %. 1900.
Col. r. T. HUBBARD:
Dear Sir:
Your letter of the 22nd instant to
hand, asking for the name of the per
son who wrote the editorial which ap
peared in THE SPECTATOR of the 10th
instant, a portion OF which appeared in
the Old Dominion Sun of this city
Replying will say that wrote the ar
ticle and am personally responsible fol
it. send you two copies of the edi
tOrial with the request that you under
score and thus point out the words
you deem Explanatory and libelOus'
and, if possible, will make suitable
amends.
Very respectfully,
| r. 8. TURK
| No answer has ever been received tt
that letter, but on the 9th. five day
after said letter was mailed, Col. Hub
ard spoke in Staunton and the news
papers say used the following Language
in regard to THE SPECTATOR:
There appeared In a city paper around
one of your street corners on the 10tt
an article as to my candidacy SO indie
cent, dirty and contemplate that
wrote the paper that l thought th,
article 30 defamatory and libellous thai
l could not believe it was written BY
a gentleman, and such an article as NJ
honorable journal should publish; sucl
an article rs should be unqualifiedly
/ WAUhAs q W ~ AAAA 40 n Oh AOl uhO A0AoO "
the author. Instead OF withdrawal
that paper in It's last issue had another
article on u similar line Thus like The
SOW returning to her wallow, and the
dog to his vomit.
No representative of THE SPECTA
TOR was present during that portion
of Col. HIS speech, hence the words
come to us through the press only.
Until some answer is made to what
we deem polite and Courteous reply
to Col. Hubard's letter of the 22nd Of
August. We cannot be insulted by him
nor can we take any serious notice Of
his bOmbastic utterances. They have
with the exception of the letter of date
22nd August, been made to little
negro audiences in the district. and
while we do not know all he has said
we conclude from the above sample
that the language has been suited to
the hearers, and the company he ke eps.
neither Of which has ever appealed
strongly to our taste. We are I'M
willing to admit that there is any
thing defamatory in the article of the
23rd ult., and we await with interest
the opportunity given Col. H. to point
out the defamatory words in the arti
Gle Of the 10th. In justice to ourselves
we will say that as we printed our
paper of the 23rd on the afternoon of
22nd, the second editorial was on the
press before We received his letter
dated August o. This much in clos
ing We will state, that no power but
death can stop US from criticizing the
career of any Republican candidate
who offers for Congress in this dis
trict.
OUR TROUBLES IN CHINA.
Our war in China hoe mona for