Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1904-05-12
Mr.. LINDSEY REPLIES
To Our Criticism of His Assault on
Colonel Slemp.

Last week we received a communication
from Mr.. Stuart F. Lindsey that was in
tended 20 be a reply to our crid.
cisms of bis recent attack upon Colonel
Slemp, published by him in the Roanoke
Time, Bristol Herald, and copied in other
Democratic newspapers in this district.
Mr.. Lindsey requested the publication OF
his communication in the Republican"
and it was our purpose to comply with his
request But he published it In the Roam
oke Times of the 9th inst and also in the
Bristol Herald, and we decided not to
publish it for the reasons set forth in the
following letter sent Mr.. Lindsey:
"Tazewell, Va, May 10th, 1904.
Mr.. Stuart +. Lindsey,
Dear Sir Your letter Of 2nd inst
reached me too late for publicatonin my
paper last week. 1t was my purpose to
publish it in this weeks issue, though it is
remarkable request to make of pub
Usher, that he shall print in his paper a
communication which charges the pub
Usher with having ''malce and hatred"
for the the author Of the communication.
"Since you have published the com.
munication in two or more Democratic
newspapers l shall decline to publish it in
mine. No doubt other Democratic pa
pers will copy the communication; and
you msy rest assured that the letter will,
through such mediums, reach and be joyful.
Iy read by these who will most appreciate
and hope to profit by it. return here
with the manuscript you sent me.
Yours truly,
WIN. G. PENDLEToN."
Mr.. Lindsey's answer to our criticisms
of bis assault upon Colonel Slemp contain
nothing that strengthen the charges he
made against the latter, and, therefore,
upon that score needs no attention at our
handa. AS to the comparative truth of the
charges he made and the truth Of the
criticisms We made thereon, We are per-
fectly willing to have the intelligent public
determine. We have no fears as to the ver-
dict which the Republicans of the Ninth
District will render.
Our assertion that be revealed things
that had been communicated to him in
confidence while occupying most conf
dental relation to candidate and party
has 30 provoked Mr. Lindsey that be
thinks he must have incurred the "hatred
and malice" of the editor of this paper.
We desire to disabuse his mind # such an
impression, if our effort to do SO will be
appreciated by him; and we now declare
in truth and soberness that we entertain
no feeling Of hatred or malice for any
soul on earth For some men We enter
tain a feeling Of indifference or contempt;
but for Mr.. Lindsey we feel only pity and
sympathy.
AS to any wrong we may have done
MIR. Lindsey by charging him with a
betrayal of trust, the opinion, 30 far as we
haye been able to ascertain it, both of
Democrats and Republicans is that be is
amendable to the charge. If our rebuke
on that point was so offensive to Mr..
Lindsey, why didn't he become offended
at what the Roanoke Times said edito'
rally about his conduct. 1t appeared in
the same issue of the Times With Mr..
Lindsey's letter attacking Colonel Slemp;
and here is what the Times said
"There will of course be some to criti-
else the former Republican chairman
ruthless exposure of his private relations loia'
has chief, and the disclosure of knowledge o6-
tanned as result thereof. But that phase
of the controversy is ethical entirely, at
fecting Mr.. Lindsey only"
The Times asserts in this pointed way
thst Mr.. Lindsey has exposed things that
came to bis knowledge as result of bis
confidential or private relations with the
candidate of tie party. And our Roam
oke contemporary evidently intended to
wash Its hands of all moral responsibility
for the immoral feature Of the publication
by declaring that it affected Mr.. Lindsey
only. He has not only failed to rebuke
the Times for declaring that he had made
"a ruthless exposure of his private rela-
tions" with the candidate of his party and
disclosed knowledge obtained as re-
suit thereof" but he continues to avail
himself of the columns Of that paper to
abuse otherO who have not made such
stinglng criticisms of bis conduct as has
the Times. Can Mr.. Lindsey Justly CON-
pain of Republicans for believing and say
;no. that ho hoo hair auad nonildnnca Hhau