The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-02-12
Card From Or. Eaton.

Editor of The Times:
Sir,-In view of your article Supposed
Attack On Mir. Whitsitt, kindly sent
me, the following statement is appro-
plate:
There are a number of inaccuracies in
the article, e. g., there are g. trustees
Of the seminary, and 50 Of them denied
any connection with that dastardlY ar
ticle in the New York Evening Post.
IL is q mistake to say that letters
were sent to me from many sections of
the land, including Richmond, asking an
explanation" You say also: In his now
famous arrowhead article, II Is generally
believed that he tried to convict Or.
TThitsitt- 1t is stated that when asked
il this was not his purpose, he Wouidii
deny it" This, too, is Inaccurate. Only
two letters on this ike have been re-
ceived-botl. private. One came from
Richmond and one from another quarter,
and from one who wrote at the suSSes-
ton of a Richmond man The letter
from Richmond came on tho day my
brother-in-law, Mr.. Andrew Tyler. dled.
An acknowledgment was Immediately
sent with the statement that the letter
would be answered in full as soon as L
returned from Nashville, where MI
TVler's remains were taken Tor burlai.
4 full answer we mailed the very day
H..
ment and the answer, it was clearly
stated that the Recorder editorial was
not designed to designate any particular
man. Simply the facts were stateST ana
the readers left to draw their own IN
ferences, for which they alone are re-
sponsible There has been no refusal to
deny intending to designate Dr.. WHIT
slit.
So far from the Recorders accusing Or.
Cif.t1,ro
who are his accusers. They are the
ones who, without questioning q single
Que of the facts presented, point him out
rs the one designated. Assuming him TO
be innocent, then one OF ten things nee
essariLy follows-either the facts are not
correct, or else they do not point to him.
No question is raised III regard TO the
correctness Of the facts, and therefore
on the assumption of Or. WIS innocence,
the facts do not point to him. by say
ing the facts do point to him. while not
denying any OF the facts, THESE Klchnloi'u
friends in effect charge DR.. w. with being
guilty. Let it be remembered that this
Charge emanates from Richmond and not
from Louisville.
Several other names have been pri-
vately suggested to me, each as the one
who was certainly intended by that
editorial But the friends of these suS-
Dected parties have not rushed into print
on the subject, and SO they are spared
what has come upon DR.. Whits.tt. Surely
if ever a man needed to pray to be de-
livered from his friends, that man is DR..
Whitsitt.
Why do not these Richmond brethren
call upon the editor of the New York
Evening Post to tell the name or names
OF the guilty? The best way to free iu-
nocent parties from suspicion in this
matter is to find the guilty. And why
do they not direct their zeal against the
guilty party, rather than against the one
who seeks to uncover him or them?
AS to my "long-standinS hostility TO
Dr.. Whitsitt" that exists only in the
imagination of those who choose to
cherish such a fancy. During the whole
controversy I did and said nothing IN
regard to him which I would not have
been perfectly willing for him to have
said and done n regard to me, had our
positions been reversed. Let the one
who doubts this name the thing said or
done. which is inconsistent with this
claim. Let the doubter put me to the
test.
As for my ''long-standing hostility to
in 1886. these are the facts: Two strong
s1,pporters OF Dr.. Wnitsitt Crews y. j.
Dickinson and r. 2. Johnston wrote
articles in his defence, which We're pub
IIs17cd in the Recorder, and in which