Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1907-07-18
THURSDAY, JULY IS, 1907.
SHALL ESTES HAVE A MONUMENT?

was hplilAlik III lne career OF
Theodore Estes to entitle him to a mon
ument. The one fact of his life which
brought him into public notice was such,
whatever the exact fact may have been,
as to arouse the wrathful Indignation of
an injured father and cause him to take
terrible vengeance.
The people of Nelson cannot afford to
slgnallze the career of this young man
as an ideal for the youth of the present
generation and generations to come.
They cannot afford, in justice to their
own sense of manners and morals, to
glorlfy such man and point their chill
oren TO him as one worthy to be honor
ed and initiated.
This paper has no disposition to -criti-
cize the dead. 1t has sincere svmpathv
with the members of his family. who
have suffered so keenly. 1t has gone
SO lar as so say that they should have
had opportunity in court to disprove the
grave charges made against him. Even
now 1t would commend any proper move
ment whose purpose should be to exon
crate him as far as the facts might lust
n.y. But to raise monument as a mark
OF honor is very different proposition.
1t would be raising false standard of
manhood, which the best men and wo-
men in the State would repudiate. The
man who takes a respectable girl to
drive, makes her drunk, and brings
humiliation upon her and her family. is
not the type of man we honor in Viz
glnla- A monument to his memory
would but emphasize and perpetuate
the act which cost him his life. and
would be as unfair to him as it is false
to public sentiment. From every point
OF view the movement is unwise and
unworthy, and should be Abandoned
Richmond Times Dispatch.
We most heartily subscribe to the
above from the Richmond Times-Dis-
patch. After seeing in the papers that
a movement had been started to erect a
monument to Estes we determined to
write something in the way of criticism;
but our Richmond contemporary .ex-
presses itself so clearly and forciblv
that we cannot hope to improve upon
its deliverance. In one particular, how
ever, we disagree with the Times-Dis-
patch. No opportunity should have
been given at the trial of Judge Loving
to exonorate Theodore Estes by the in
PRODUCTION of evidence to disprove the
story of Miss Loving. The ruling of
Judge Barkesdale, refusing to allow the
offering of such evidence, was eminent
ly right and proper, both from a moral
and legal standpoint. And the manner
in which his ruling was assailed by the
Virginia press, generally, was as ill ad-
vised as is this movement on the part of
certain people in Nelson county to erect
monument to Estes.
1t was admitted that Estes had been
guilty of crime sufficient in itself "to
arouse the wrathful Indignation of an
injured father and cause him to take
SSAAAOiS NSnS SdLiCS- OOeS the man
who takes respectable girl, makes her
drunk and brings humiliation upon her
and her family" merit exonoration
from graver charge? For his vindica-
ton or to appease the sufferings of his
friends and kindred, ought well settled
rule of evidence to be subverted? That |
was what counsel for the prosecution in |
the case of the Commonwealth VS.. Low
ing proposed to do. They wanted to in
troduce evidence to show that the story |
Miss Loving had told her father was
false. This was clearly irrelevant to
the issue that was being tried by the
jury, and if its introduction had been
permitted would have forced the Jury to
try three separate issues, two of them
collateral to the one they had been
sworn to try. There would have beenA
three cases instead of one. viz: Conf +,
monwealth VS.. w. G. Loving; Common
wealth VS.. Elizabeth Loving; Estes
vs. Loving. The mingling of these ,
would have brought interminabIe ]
confusion to the minds of the Jury :
aad greatly prejudiced the rights I
IF the man who was being tried.
Judge Barkesdale's ruling was not t
My in accordance with law and moral ?
", but the rule as applied is sound and 1
wholesome. 1t would be as unreasona-