Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1908-03-06

was private financial ENHANCEMENT
that caused him to resign. If you,
as co-defendant in the Crump case
with myself and the papers | am as
sociated with, can see any consistency
or justice in your present position,
and the public will agree with you in
its sober moments,I am willing to suf-
fer the charge of vindictiveness and
of being utterly blinded by partisan
prejudice, and am ready to clear you
of the charge of distortiug the facts
in the Rhea investigation and of
having gubernatorial axe to grind.
Some papers out of Richmond and
many peopleat large have been carried
off their feet by your unwarranted
attacks and vituperative writings.
Not one of the editors of Democratic
papers in the State, l verify believe
and know my brethren IS few
men know them-if they had been
on the scene, heard and weighed the
evidence as l was enabled to do, but
who would today be In revolt at the
expressions in your papers. They
would not stand for it, nor do l for
a moment think, with their opinions
thus unwarped, that you would have
yentured to assail in such a way the
Democracy of the State. There is
no word OF censure for those ~
Democrats who have hoisted Repub-
licanism of the Southwest to such
halyard heights, and correspondingly
lowered our banner. Some of them
may have felt the old sores of fac
tional strife and unconsciously
voted from clannish motives, but
the majority, 1 reckon, were
swerved from their convictions of
Tuesday night by bombardments
of kilograms, newspaper clippings
and personal appeals, sentiment Gre
sted BY the aforementioned campaign
you waged. Members of the General
Assembly, on either side of the fig BIT,
are not to be censured for voting as
their individual opinions dictated.
Then why do you lambast the hon
ored leaders who stood staunchly for
the Democratic party which you
were aaying :? l do protest, as a
twenty-year fighter for SCARED De-
mocracy, that you have inundated
the party upon biased and prejudic-
ed affairs of personal and fractional
feeling.
l was not a supporter of Judge
Mann two years ago, probably fight
ing him as hard in my humble
sphere as any man in the State, but
declare that the attitude you have
sought to put him in for the benefit
OF another is untrue to manhood and
Virginia journalism. l admire the
courage of Judge Mann and deplorc
the party service of your cham
pion, and l could not note without
aversion the conspicuous grali6-
cation In public places engaged
in by his promoters after the
scenes of Thursday night. Having
previously fought side by side with
Rhea in turbulent Southwest cam
paigns Cup to the last Rhea- Slemp
contest) one was as deepin the mud
as the other in the mire. Advertise
ments in some Richmond papers on
the first page, top of column, in the
place Of reading matter Of not paid
for in cash, procured by "influ-
ence"). seek to place Dir. Stuart in
the light of Q reluctant witness
for the Republican Democratic con-
tingent, but all the ink drops of your
press will never wipe out the stain
of the impression on unbiased minds
that it was the most reproachable
bid for public notoriety and Demo-
cratic guternatorial preference that
has furnished our political escutch-
con since Malone went over to the
enemy. bag and baggage, under the
colors of Democracy. You would |
not publish this, and have limited |
means by which to reach the public
ear, but | know the Virginia country
editor as perhaps you do not, and my
faith In his rectitude and disposition
for fair tote assures me that he will
get righted and realize that he must
shun, so far as political informa-
ton goes, the undemocratic papers
of Richmond city as he would
a common scold. Even though
were the only editor in the State Just
now (Which, thanks, ] am not) to do
30, resent your aapersion in Fridays
issues that the flower of Virginia
Democracy was "driven into the line
by the party LASH, and ! charge that
no lash has been welded 80 unfairly
Or numerically in the history of our