Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1905-11-02
such things became necessary for re-
tanning political control of the State. -
A DENIAL AND AFFIRMATION,

both Democrats and Republicans, at the
effort of the Democratic press to
prove that Judge Lewis once declared
himself in favor of miscegenation. It'll
now trying to clear its skirts of the
very conspicuous part it played in first
giving to the public the scandalous
charge and afterwards trying to fasten
it upon. Judge Lewis. In its issue OF
the 18th ult., the Times-Dispatch in an
article headed: "The Real Charges
Against Judge Lewis" said:
There is a popular impression that
the Democratic organization of Virginia
has charged that Judge L. L. Lewis
stood before an audience of negroes at
Chesterfield Courthouse in l877.or 1878
and, declared that he was in favor Of
miscegenation. No such, charge was
ever made. No man who knows Judge
Lewis believes that he favors or that he
ever favored mixed marriages"
But after making this positive disa-
vowal of any intention on the part OF
the Democratic organization or OF the
Times-Dispatch to say that Judge
Lewis ever favored mixed marriages,
our Richmond contemporary tries to re-
iterate the charge and prove it true.
The Times-Dispatch in the same para
graph from which the above is quoted
proceeds to quote the following which
Judge Hundley says he put as a question
to Judge Lewis:
''You profess to be friend to the enc
gro; now wish to ask you a question.
There is now pending in the
Legislature a bill to prohibit the inter
marriage of negroes and whites under
severe penalty. !, as friend of both
races, think this wise measure and
that it should be passed. Iwant you to
tell these negroes whether you favor
that bill or oppose it. Judge Lewis re-.
piled, says Judge Hundley, that he OPP
posed the bill and was in favor of allow
ing the intermarriage of the races"
In the next paragraph of the editorial
the Times-Dispatch says:
'In formulating the charge, we have
the language Of q letter writ
ten by Judge Hundley to State Chair
man EIlyson under date of October 2,
1905, and it was upon this statement
that the charge against Judge Lewis
was made public by Congressman Will
liam A. Jones in a speech at Fredericks-
burg on October 18th. Unfortunately
our correspondent in the Introductory
paragraph Of his telegram to the Times
Dispatch, said that Mr.. Jones charged
Judge Lewis with having advocated
iscegenation, but in his synopsis Of
Mr.. Jones's speech he used this LAM
guage: ''Mr. Jones said there was
pending in the Virginia Legislature
bill to prevent the intermarriage of the
races. Judge Hundley declared his APP
prevail of the bill and demanded Of Judge
Lewis that he state his position in re-
gard to it. The reply came that he,
Lewis, was opposed to its adoption and
favored ALLOWING the intermarriage
Of the races" AS soon as he read the
report Mr.. Jones stated that he had not
used the word 'miscegenation, and the
correction was-promptly made"
The Times Dispatch then follows the
last above quoted sentences with one
ahd.a half columns Of the rankest sophis-
try in a mean endeayOr to show that
Judge Hundley was correct. in stating
that Judge Lewis had said at Chester
field Courthouse that he was opposed
to the passage of the measure to pro-
hibit the intermarriage Of negroes and
whites and that he was in favor Of al
lowing the intermarriage of the races.
So, in one paragraph the Times-Dis-
patch declares that it was never the in
tention of the party organization to
charge that Judge Lewis was in favor
of niscegenation. And it emphasizes
that declaration by saying: mo man
who knows Judge Lewis believes
that he ever favored mixed mar
But in two succeeding
parts of its editorial the Times-Dis-
patch states that the charge had been
made by the Democratic organization,
and published by the Times-Dispatch
that Judge Lewis had declared himself
in favor of allowing the intermarriage
of the races.
Will the Times-Dispatch please ex-
plain the difference between "miscege-
nation" and allowing the intermar-
riage of the races?" How can our
contemporary expect to re-
tain the confidence and respect of its hon
est, intelligent readers while it pursues
such an Inconsistent course in the treat
ment of the. scandalous and false report
conceived by its party leader and first
published to the world in the columns of
the Times-Dispatch?
Our Richmond contemporary affects
to have been shocked by the bitter de-
nunciation which Judge Lewis hurled at
r noxaoy.. T11lxrooy, ~, his opaach af Navu