Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1909-06-11
CALLS FOR PROOF.
Judge Mann Again Denounces
Charge That Liquor Men Are.
Backing Him for Governor.

~1 'sAt kVA OVvGtaIVl
! Il most respectfully decline to acceut
your proposition to have ten Joint dis
cussions throughout the State" saws
the Judge in opening his letter of re-
ply to Mr.. Tucker, which consumes
seventeen pages of closely typewri,.s,,
matter Judge Mann takes occasion in
this letter to deny number of STATE.
ments alleged to have been made nv
Mr.. Tucker, as well as to submit to the
puphc many reasons why he thinks he
Is entitled to the Office to which ne
aspires. over his competitor. He re-
peats at length his former contentious
IN favor of campaign free from b;t-
terness, proceeding then to DENY a
number of Mr.. fuckers recent asser-
tions.
In discussing the Petersburg local
option election. Judge Mann saws: al
nave just seen in the newspapers your
statement that / should have been at
nome when the local option election
was held in Petersburg last week.
MY nome and voting place is in Not
toway county, as you must know since
you have several times referred to me
IN your speeches as the Senator from
NottowAy- This is hardly a fair wav
to seek to create the impression that
failed to vote when a local option
election was held at my home, as YOU
did when such a1,election was held in
Lexington on March %, 1900"
Judge Mann denies that he b,s
avoided meeting Mr.. Tucker at anv
point where they have happened on the
same day, though he says that the
campaign is proceeding to his entire
satisfaction, for which among other
reasons he does not care for Joint
meetings.
He charges Mr.. Tucker with a lack
Oh irankness- in intimating that he
voted Tor an amendment to the Byrd
law to permit the taking of drinks on
railroad trains. In further explaining
MS position on the liquor question.
he says:
And while ! am on this subject u
want to say that you have been max
ing all over this State charge against
me that is not in any respect true
and III making which you do me a GROSS
injustice AT first you stated, or ratb-
er, inslnuated, that l had made some
deal with the liquor people for the
purpose of securing their votes ri
denied this charge and stated that IFS
repetition by any one would bear the
brand OF falsehood. You then said that
you accepted my statement as being
true, but charged that such a deal had
Deen made by some one for me. but
you did not say by whom.
Il say positively and emphaticallv
That no such deal has been made bv
me or by any one for me; that no one
ias or will have authority from me
% make such deal, and that none
viii De made You have not the right
% go over the State making suob an
ndehnate charge, which you know has
sen time and time again denied. know 4
nat the great body of liquor people
the State are eseiyely OPP
losing me, and if there be SONS Of
mem supporting me, and hope there 9
re- they are doing so with a full
nowledge of my record and of m,
resent position. which have fully set f
orth in my public speeches, soms of C
mich have printed and widely dis e
rlDuted- In justice to the men who v
iHer from me on the liquor question. t
Will say that no proposition of anv n
Ind has been made by them 10 me Il
irectly or indirectly. ! have written A
stters of the same tenor and have sent | g
be same literature to all voters. re- {
ardlsss of their views on the temner- {
nee question. again deny vour v
barge and call for your proof and II o
on cannot produce it you should pub. j
ely withdraw your CHARGE n