Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1911-10-26
THE BILL OF PARTICULARS.


On the 21st of September we re-
sponded to the call of the Roanoke
Times for Bill OF Particulars support
ing our oft repeated and amply proven
charges of the corrupt legislation and
administration of Virginia affairs by the
Democrats. And when we filed our bill
of particulars we said:
I'VE feel tempted to again file
bills OF particulars, as we have fire.
quently done at the cali of the Roam
oke Times. But now, as then, we
shall expect the Roanoke Times,
while not disputipg the corruption
OF the acts mentioned, to laugh at
them as trivial"
In this particular we were not disap-
pointed. After waiting three weeks
and having TO be prodded into noticing
our bill of particulars, the Times under
takes to respond in its usual crafty and
evasive manner, but in a way that it
may confidently expect its credulous
readers to approve. For the Times has
gathered unto itself a clientele which
is charmed with the rare style that
it possesses for coloring vicious politics
so as TO have the semblance of truth and
virtue.
The Times tries first to destroy the
entire force of the seven items in cur
bill of particulars, by charging that four
Republicans in the State Senate voted
for the Act which appropriated the pub
lie revenues for the two fiscal years,
1910 and 1911. This is in keeping with
the disingenuous methods of the Times.
In other words, when the Times is con-
fronted with indisputable acts of IN
clesnness of the Democratic party, it
tries to escape responsibility by charg-
ing that the Republicans have some
where and somehow been similarly IN
clean.
Now the Times must know that the
minority party members of the legisIa-
tive bodies in Virginia ere not permit
ted to have any voice in the making of
the appropriation bills; and, therefore,
have no responsibility resting upon them
as to the merits or dement's of such
measures. These bills are framed by
the Democrats, and all the Republicans
can do is to vote for or against them on
their final passage. If they vote at all
they vote for the bill, just as the minor
ity party does in Congress or in the leg
islatures of the various states.
The Times devotes nearly a fourth of
a column in an effort to reply to our
first item 'the corrupt changing of the
name of the Board of Fisheries to that
of the Commission of Fisheries" The
Times very adroitly says nothing about
this Act violating the constitution in
that it was intended to increase the sal
airy of officers during their term. And
our Roanoke contemporary tries to ex-
terminate the vice by claiming that the
Act was necessary, because of the fact
that the States net income from the
oyster business had grown to some
$50, 900 or $4,000. This claim of the
Times only strengthens our charge, and
proves that the Act was conceived in
vice and brought forth in corruption
for the purpose of handing out to the
hungry members of the tribe the entire
revenues derived from the oyster bust
ness. The Times says:
''The powers and duties of the
new commission were vastly in
creased, the S45, 900 appro-
priated for the development and
protection of the States oyster
beds 81, 300 goes for salaries to the
commissioner and clerk and the rest
or so much as may be necessary to
pay clerks of court for plating and
renting oyster grounds, for police
protection, maintenance of steam
ers and police boats, ct cet., all to be
paid from the oyster tax"
This quotation from the Act in ques-
lion, coupled with the explanation Of
he Roanoke Times, discloses the evil !
md corrupt purposes of the measure.
That $45, 900 net revenue from the oys-
.er tax was dispensed to the members
# the tribe. A crew of political pi-
'ates" was added to the army of 'po- |