The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1905-10-28
SHARP LETTERS
That Of Judge Lewis Draws Fire
From State Democratic Chair.
man EllySOn.

T
of the Democratic State Committee, and
iully explains itself.
Richmond. Va, Oct. -, 1901
J. Taylor Ely son, Esq. Chairman Dem
ocratic State Committee, Richmond
Va:
Sir-The State is being Hooded with
dodgers headed, serious Charge Against
Lewis. 60 An Advocate ui lntermar-
riage. "a copy of which enclose
A. propose TO refer to tins matter IN
nav speech here tonight, ! write TO IN
ouire whetherthis literature Is being sent
out bv the committee, of which you are
chairman. or under your direction. or
with Nour knowledge and approval.
Very respectfully yours,
l.. l.. LEWIS.
MIR. ElINsON' : REPLY
Following is the reply OF Er. Ellyson,
which was borne 10y his sOn-in-laW, MT.
Frank r. Crump.
Richmond. Va. oct. ~. 1903.
Hon. l.. l.. Lewis,
City.
Sir-ln reply to your inquiry Of this
date beg leave 10 say that the dodger
10 which YOU refer Is the copy oi the
Tlmes-nispatch report OF the speech oi
Hon. ". 4. Jones, at Fnedercashurg, ON
Oct. 10th. without any addition or
change whatever. and was credited 10
this paper a. YOU Will see. from thecopy
wc enclose you \ copy oi tle report
was prepared for u,r. and ouly lew
sent out. the rest being Withheld imme-
diately upon the statement ol Hon. W.
A. Jones that that the word 'mlscegena-
tion" had not b,'en used 10y him ia ms
speech.
n making the above statement, how
ever. do not wish 10 be- understood ~
dissenting iu any y ise from thr dcciara.
lions made by judge lluudley as Ia
what occurred between him and Noudur-
inn the debate AT Chesterfield {. IL, that
he lJudge lluudleyl prOpounded 20 you
IN, question whether You hvOred a bil
to prohibit the intermauage oi whites
and negroes. and that you promptly re-
piled that YOU opposed the policy oi
fhe bill. and favored allowing all per
SOILS negroes and whites. 20 marry
whom they pleased.
You call Mr. :. :. Z. PattesOn as your
witness. aud y0u report Mr.. Pattesun
"as having "a clear recollection oi the
matter IN controversy. Mr. Patteson
saws in his card 10 You, under date al
October 18TH that he could not posi-
blv remember the exact language Used
bV either speaker on that OCCASION.
During the progress Oi the debate, how
ever ".ludee Lewis. Mr.. PattesOn de-
clar.d "either said he would not vote
for the bill to prohibit intermarriage OF
the races. or that such "a measure was
unconstitutional.
Ia the Tmes-Dispatch Oi October leth
YOU replied 10 the speech Oi Mr.. Jones,
made at Fredericksburg, in which reply
You stated that Il have no recollection OF
having a Joint discussion with anyone IN
Chesterfield prior to 1881. ltWascertain-
lv not later than 1sSl. NOrdo remem-
ber that ON the occasion in question any
ollusion was made to the subject Oi mar
riage." After stating that you did not
have debate at the time mentioned by
.Iudre Hundley, YOU said that II the sub
iect of intermarriage was discussed, you
mirht have said you considered such a
bill as OF doubtful ulcOnstltutionality. lou
will observe that the witness you call
distinctly states that the subject OF inter
marriage was under discussion. and that
his recollection was that you were either
oDpOsed to the bill To prohibit intermar-
riage OF the races or that you discussed
its constitutionalty.
Hon. W. 4. Jones writes letter 10
Tie Times-D Dispatch, which appeared IN
the last Fridays issue, IN which he tells
how Mr.. PattesOn, in my Office, had a
conversation with him in my presence.
Mr. Patteson was informed that the OBJ
iect of inviting him down 10 meet MIR.
.Iones WAS TO ascertain whether or not
lac could recall the incident OF the debate
at Chesterfield c. H., and in order that
no might be careful in making his
reply. he was informed by Mr.. Jones that
the latter might make reference to the
debate in a speech at fredericksburg, 10
be made that night.
Mr.. Patteson, after hearing the letter
OF Judge Hundley, stated that me as
tinctly recalled that Judge Hundley
asked Judge Lewis if he favored the
massage of the bill TO prohibit and punish
the intermarriage OF whites and blacks
and Judge Lewis replied that he was
opposed to the passage ofany such Dlll.
"The statement OF Judge Hundley, Mr..
Patteson further declared, "he knew 10
be substantially correct.
This is Mr. JOnes's recollection oi what
Mr.. Patteson stated in an interview III
nv Office. and ! confirm Mr. Jones
statement OF what occurred in that inter
,l,far
matter. / have just received copy Oh
letter by Judge +. f. Montague, ol
Hampton, Va, written to Judge Hund-
lev. under date OF October 23d, who was
present at Old Point during the last meet
inc of the State Bar Association, when
the subject OF the debate at Chesterfield
e. II. was under discussion. Judge Mon
tooue saws that Mr.. Pattesdn remarked
that he was present during the debate
to which Judge Hundley alluded as hav-
inc taken place, and that "Mr. Patteson
remarked that be went with Judge Hund
lev 10 the courthouse and heard that dis.
cnssion.p Judge Hundley then asked
MIR Patteson If the facts were not true
ms he had stated them, and Mr. Pate
son answered, "they were true.
| While writing 10 you diil ,DnH ~ 80, "iiie'
to notice another matter. lnIhe Times
I Dispatch this morning in report o
vonr meeting at Staunton yesterday, .
TELEGRAM from there says; Judge Lewis
was the next speaker to direct hrs atten
ton to the conduct Of a fair AMI cieaI
primary. He said the Democratic party
had no platform and no principles an'
was spending their time in flinging mu'
at the opposing candidates. .
beg to call your attention to the lac
that nothing meaner or more despicabi'
\ has been uttered in this campaign thar
that which was published in the Indus
trial Era, of Roanoke, Va, under date o
October both, whose editor says atth
ltop OF the page on which these things nr
pubIished that, "the political mattg ol
this page is paid for and furnished by tn
Republican State Committee
quote you one or two samples. {
what they publish
"Air. Swauson refuses to furnish tina
IL