The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-08-31

Mr.. Glass. Mr. a. +. Thomas, who mas
been making frequent speeches in this
campaign and doing Everything he
could FOR Mr.. Glass WIS a candidate
Ter the state Senate upon one occa sion
against Mr., Don. T. Hdlsey. with tae
declared purpose Of opposing the re-
election to the Senate OF Senator Dan
lei. air. Glass may have voted against
Mir. Thomas, but / we'll recall that the
friends Of Senator Daniel never thought
he extended TO MIR. Hatsey the earnest
support that wa 8 due him from 50 pro-
fessed a friend OF Senator Daniel either
in his newspaper or Individually
1t is iHConcetyable that Senator Dan
tel. who WAS man Of the utmost c1ur-
age, candor and fraukness. would have
borne himself toward me rs he d.d, in
both public and private associations.
II there had been the slightest founda-
that he distrusted me.
Martin Denies Statement.
Il note also tnat slr. Class states
IN his speech that no was once In
formed By senator Martin thar Senator
Daniel had toil him that he tD2nieI)
charged swanson 10 his face q $ beng
guilty Of betayipg hts friends i'm
m"diateIy upon reading this statement
OF MIR. Glass / telegraphed II to soma
tor Martin who was in Accomac county
ana inquired the facts. senator Mar
tin replied as follows. I made nc
auCh statement to Glass and Daniel
never made it TO me. You have my full
authority TO deny Il as you think II
should be denied for me. / am sure
this state meat from senator Martin
Will conclude This matter before tins
people OF virginia
i also note Mr.. Glass states that
when / accused him IN my Ia WrenCe.
vale speech OF voting against the EN-
pio}ers liability bin ! stated what was
not true and what knew was not true
HIS basis for this charge WIS TINT
had letters before me from Hon ku-
gene " Ahers and Hon Jos. Button
sHowing that he had been strong )
Ter putting the employers liability BIZ
IN the Constitution. 1 have never seer
or heard OF the letters from these two
gentlemen to me until mentioned 10y
Mr.. Glass in his Lynchburg speech
Neither Of these gentlemen has evei
written any such letter to ae.
Not in Record.
TT is most Temarka Bile that a public
record Of The proceedings al The senate
and OF the convention. which contain,
the records Of votes of members and 81
remarks Icy them should be considered
less reliable and accurate than priyat,
letters relating TO the same matters
Ample opportunity vas presented t,
Mr., Glass to correct tie public recort
TX Il had been incorrect. ! 80 not Know
what the !atters MT Glass refers *
contain; but DO know what the publit
constitutional Convention disclose. ant
these I mentioned In my speech. They
show that on March d, 1900, Mr. Glass
voted II tho State Senate of Virgins
against the employers liability bill
can letter from any body explain this
solemn record away? Does SIR. Glas:
deny any recordo
Il also stated that when the article
Of the Constitution relating to the Cor.
poration Commission and including the
employers LIABILITY provision came be.
fore the convention itself as reported
from the Committee Of the Whole, Mr
Glass was absent. failed to vote on &
Single roll call and failed to be ralrel
on thls article one Of the most i'm.
ptrtant In the whole Cons 1ltutIon. NJ
letter from any one can alter thls rec
ora as correct relation of the actua
facts.
- 4 also stated that while this article
was being considered in the Committee
Of the Whole the records do not dis.
close ans speech or word from Mir
Glass In its favor.
we ma him, therefore. acttyel,
Fetins against The employers liza hiIitl
biz once ana negatively opposing II
as another time BY his silence and an
pared absence, Mr. Glass must ex.
pain this record away In some NOR,
saf3stac t0rA; way than by .cla timing tHA
soda one alse wrote a letter in whicf
u was stated that his real attitud,
toFaf1s this measure was other thar
the record d!scloses@