Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1909-04-23
JUDGE MANN ANSWERS.
Wants Mr.. fuckers Record on Tem-
peranCe.

pefdnce.
Those that heard Mr.. Tucker in Nor
cumberland. as well as in AceOmac,
were surprised at the reckless state
ments of that gentleman concerning
his opponent, and have waited for Judge
Mann TO make reply, which the latter
has done in a cool. gentlemanly manner.
The following extracts clear up tue
main two attacks of MIR. Tucker:
The campaign canard is very much in
evidence these days in Virginia, and
candidates for office are kept busy nail
ing them. Judge William Hodges
Mann, who has the misfortune of having
the hostility of a section of the CITY
press or OF being the victim of careless
or sensational correspondents, or both.
has been especially annoyed by the
printing of unreliable statements and
the publication as fact of rumors and
differences affecting him and his candl-
dacy. but for which he is wholly irres-
ponslble. Fortunately through his for
sight, he has had stenographIc reports
made of every public uti erance of his
during the campaign and he is thereby
enabled, TO quote with precision just
what he did say.
Judge Mann has just sent the follow
ing statement in the nature of correc-
tiOn TO certain newspapers which were
mlSsled by unreliable publications into
placing him in wrong and injurious
light:
Il have been requested by several
newspapers to give them the facts in
reference to two statements made by
Mr.. Tucker in his speech at Accomac
on the 9th instant, as reported in the
daily newspapers. Inasmuch as I do
not now expect to make a political
speech until next week, [ have decided
to give out the following;
MIR. Tucker is reported to have
quoted me as saying that was
brought into the political arena by the
Presbyterian, Baptist and other
churches.
Il nave never at any time or at any
place made any such statement. AS
shown by. the stenographic report of
my speech, what said at Manchester
on the night of April I'd, and what |
said many times during nv canvass
IN 1908, was that the great Methodist
church, the great Baptist church ana
the Christian churches of this Common
wealth gave the official endorsement
OF their bodies to the Mann BILL
This is true, and i honor those
great churches for the support given
TO moral question, when it needed
the help of all its friends.''
Mr.. Tucker himself, it seems. has
taken up and repeated this Inaccurate
statement and accepted il without ascer-
tanning it's unreliability. The origin of
the trouble appears to be with the
grossly inaccurate and misleading and
unjust statements of certain correspon-
dents or reporters. -Danville Register.
Mr.. tucker is further reported as
having said, to which Judge Mann replies:
Judge Mann claims that he has
fought the liquor question for thirtv-
five years, but know of five minutes
in those thirty-five years he did not
fight the cause. When the bill was
presented to the Legislature to stop
the sale of liquor on dining-cars of the
railroad companies why did not Mann
vote for the bill? Was he taken sud
denly i'll? He was present five minutes
before the bill was presented and five
minutes afterward, but absented him
self when the bill was brought up. |
don't know where he was, but i do
know he was counsel for the railroad
companies at the time
In the above there are several mac
curacies and two distinct misstate-
ments of facts: First, the Folkes amend
ment, to which he refers, was not a
temperance measure, offered "to stop
the sale of Liquor on dining cars" but
on the contrary was for the purpose of
authorizing such sale; and second. |
was not counsel for any railroad COM
pany at the time il was p~oposed.
Again, as ] understand il, although |
have never seen one of the contracts,
the railroad companies pay the Pullman
Company, which is an entirely separate
coorpration, for running its cars on
their trains, and were not Interested in
the measure. Besides, the measure
was not bill" but was an amendment
offered on the floor of the Senate with
out notice to bill then being consider
ed. Mr.. fuckers statements. there.
fore. fall unsupported from any stand
point.
Under the law of Virginia, as il was
then and is now, Pullman car can
not procure license to sell liquor and |
has not the right to sell it. If this |
which placed tax of $3.50 |
On license to sell liquor on Pullman cars
had been adopted, the next move would
have been to so amend the Byrd Bill as
% provide for the granting of licenses
o sell liquor on Pullman cars.
But even granting that for five min
ties in thirty-five years / was out of
'lace, or even unmindful of my duty
% the temperance cause, can Mr.. Tuck
n say that he ever spent as much as
i've minutes in all of his life in adj
'ancing the interest of temperance?
'erhaps he might tell what he did tol
lelp the temperance cause in the local
option election which was held at Lex
ngton on March 18th, 1900, while he
vas professor at Washington and
lee University. would be glad to
lear from Mr.. Tucker on this point
IS | wish to be accurate in making nv
= VIM. HODGES MANN.