Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1906-06-15
FACTS IN THE CASE.

fulness to light. Among the many lead
ing ones is the following which speaks
for itself. We copy from the Hampton
Monitor, owned and edited by Hon. II.
n Houston, member of the Legislature,
which closes its testimony with an
editorial from the Richmond Journal
written when things were fresh. Saws
the Monitor:
The Northern Neck News, said to be
largely owned, operated and editorially
energized, especially during campaigns,
by the Honorable William A. Jones,
with the assistance of a Second-in- Com.
mand, after studying over the matter
since April 6, comes out in denial fan
reaching.
The denial of the Northern Neck News
is as follows, little hot in places but
the facts subsequently adduced may
serve to slightly cool it:
''The friends of Mr.. Ohio f. Mears
are hardly doing that gentleman's can
didacy any good by making untrue state
ments about Hon. w. A. Jones. We
| cannot believe that it is with MIR. Mears'
endorsement, but We noticed last week
that our esteemed contemporary, the
Colonial Beach Progress, had copied
from The Hampton Monitor a state
ment to the effect that Mr.. Jones
threatened to block the jamestown APP
preparation bill in Congress if the Leg
lsiature insisted upon passing the Cum
| ming redistricting bill in the session of
l9O2-S-4. There as not a soord Of truth an
fnfn
aods made. Mr.. Jones was willing then
to have the district changed along the
lines that were finally followed in the
General Assembly Of 1906. A substitute
Tor Mr.. Cummings bill, proposing al
most exactly such district as we now
have, adding Newport News, Elizabeth
Clty county, etc, was introduced bv
Mr.. Baker, of Westmoreland. Not n
single man who fought the Cumming
bill ever had it wired or heard it ru.
mored that Mr.. Jones would vote
against the jamestown appropriation
bill on account of the redistrictino agitation.
People and papers ought not to make
STATEMENTS that can not be sub
Utalics our own.)
If the owner-in-chief, Hon. VIM. A.
Jones, wrote the above, it is written in
very bad faith; if the Com
mand wrote it, it was written in ignor-
ance. We will be fair enough to Mr..
Jones to believe that he did not write il.
for he knows that it was given out from
Washington that he would retaliate as
above mentioned. We will even be fair
enough to any other person who NAV
have written IL to excuse him upon the
grounds of not knowing.
AS matter of fact such Information
was given, sent or wired out of Wash
ington. We do not pretend to assert
that Mr.. Jones conceived the article.
wrote up the story, and then dropped
IN upon an idle keyboard and tele-
graphed it out. Nor will anyone with
the ordinary amount of common sense
suppose for an instant that some news
paper reporter in the deIirium of dope
or ntoxicants dreamed this dream of
the First District and wired it out
before he awakened. Then it is peril
nent to inquire who, and only WHO,
could have inspired the article?
1t is stated positively that the article
appeared in the columns of the Newport
News Daily Press We read it in that
paper, as well as we can recall. under
Washington date line and as that
paper has no special correspondence in
Washington it must have been sent out
by the Associated Press. 1t is said
that the report was printed generally.
Certainly it was published broadly. for
the Richmond Evening Journal saw fit
to comment upon it in leading double
column editorial.
The Richmond Evening Journal. at
the time referred to said:
"Such course might be suitable for
an obscure ward politician addicted to
the peanut habit, but would be utterly
unworthy Of any man above that station.
It is utterly impossible, therefore. to
imagine that Mr.. Jones, who has claimed
TO occupy a particularly lofty pedestal
IN the public life Of Virginia, could
descend to such course. Now, it APP
pears that some REIMBURSEMENT between
the First and Second districts is neces-
sary- There are no geographical oh
Jections TO the proposed change. The
chief objection seems to be that il NAV
not increase, but may diminish his politi-
cal hold on the First district. Would
this be q good reason for the Legisla-
ture to assign for refusing the people
OF Newport News their reasonable re-
quest Are the personal wishes and
individual interests Of q Congressman
to be the sole criterion by which the
Legislature shsll be guided in shapinc, :
district? We labored under the I'M
preston that Theoretically. at leastl
the Congressman was made for the dis
trict, not the district for the Congress-
man, and that it was the duty of the
Legislature to consult rather the wishes
OF the people Of the district than TIRE
personal interests of their members of
Congress. From the facts, as we can
gather them, the proposed assignment
OF Newport News to the First district
Is a most suitable one. 1t is extremely
difficult toperceive how any representa-
tive from Virginia could consistently
oppose an appropriation from the gen
eral Government for this great Virginia
enterprise. Still less do we see how
any Congressman could oppose it and
continue to regard himself as a true
representative of any portion of Tide |
water Virginia. To oppose the measure
simply out of spite and revenge for |
having an addition made to his district |
that he did not want would be beneath |
contempt. 1t would scarcely be posi-
Die Tor any man with jot of self-re-
spect to contemplate, much less to per
Datra To ~Such m oct IF x,,aarr1.c o.