The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1911-08-19
EX-G0V. MONTAGUE
Makes Caustic Reply to Chair.
man EIlyson.

Chairman j. Taylor Ellyson. Hon
A. j. Montague gave out the follow
ing:
Mr.. Ellyson says have made
complaint against her (Virginia)
people lie knows this is untrue
so he at once proceeds TO substitute
the Democratic party for the state
and then, the present party manage
ment for the party itself II is this
/ indefensible substitution Of the par.
/ ~ management for the party and
/ the state that honest Democrats re
sent; and it. is this very substitution
/ this making the organization, the
servant. greater than It's master, the
party. that constitutes the machine
So Mr.. Ellyson's shameless substitu-
tion in itself confcsses the ex-
istence of the machine.
"He next contends that inasmuch
as have hqld Office for twelve
years | should not criticise this ma
chine Here he and | again differ,
for | believe that though one held
one thousand Offices for one thous-
and years he is not deprived OF HIS
right of criticism OF his party or its
management. have never treated
public office as a bribe TO secure
my silence.
1T is true was u. S. District At
torney for little over four
years under appointments by Presi-
dent Cleveland and Chief Justice Full
Ter. respectively. The machine did
not make these appointments. / was
subsequently nominated for Attor-
ney General and the GOyernOrship,
but imagine that no candid or in
formed men in Virginia believe that
these nominations were accomplished
or dictated by the present party
management or the machine. In
fact, ! met the covert and cunning
opposition OF the machine at every
stage ,Of my campaign.
But Mr.. Ellyson gratuitous-
ly adds that held appointment un-
der Republican administrations for
two years. intending thereby to
impeach my party loyalty. served
as one Of six delegates of the Uni
ted States 10 the Pan-American
Conference at Rio In 1906, lasting
lOul ntEArs anu 80 bAAt VI
four American delegates Of the In
ternational Conference on Maritime
Law at Brussels in the fall Of 1909
and 1910, the two sessions con-
suming about four weeks. Thus two
months and not two years were
Employed by me under these two
non-partisan appointments made by
Presidents Roosevelt and Taft, re-
spectiyely. and without my knowl-
edge, or that OF any friend Of mine.
so far as | know. But the griey-
vance OF Mr.. Ellyson would now
seem to be that these two appoint
ments were rendered to me in
atead of TO a machine man. And
does not this sustain my argument
chat the machine endeayOrs always
TO maiign any free Democrat who
may hold office or appointment?
But il Is known that the machine
has presented machine Democrats TO
the president for high positions. Did
these machine recommendations
make republicans OF these Demo-
Gratis considered or named by the
president? Mr.. Ellyson's contention
implies that of two appointments by
a Republican administration the ma
chino man is a Democrat and ohe
anti-machine Democrat is a Republi-
can Consistency and truth lie
outside the pathway OF tho ma
chine.
But Mr.. Elgson beclouds the is
sue 1t is not the raising but the
distribution of campaign contribu-
sions for the years of 1891 and
1893;it was the private and secret
distribution Of funds by Mr. Thomp-
son and others to candidates for
the Legislature and to persons af-
Ser those candidates were elected
that makes the issue. And in con-
nection with this isIue | stated at
Staunton that such unofficial and
private distributions of money in
1891 and 1898 were not justified by
the present clamOr of white suprem
acy. and / cit d Gen. Fitz Lee as
fayoring white supremacy as much
as any man, living or dead. and
chat he resented these secret and
sinister contributions by Mr..
Thompson and others. made no
llAtiAilOll VI MI. oOiA III iHlo 1OAA
nectiun, and why should he now
dome forward to dofend these pri-
vate distributions? Does he not
thereby again confirm our contention
that the machine is practically the
attorney or partisan agent Of un-
fair methods?
"Mr. Ellyson next demands that
these candidates who received these
private and unofficial contributions
iholild be named; indeed. he de-
clarcs that not TO do so Is as cow
ardly as II is cruel. But pray who
can name these men except those
who paid the money? The cruelty
and cdwardce are with the men
possessing and Withholding this in
formation. would, therefore, re-
fer Mr.. Ellyson TO his friend, Mr..
Thompson and others But does not
Mr., ElIyson recall that great ef-
fort was onca made to have these
guilty men named Gen. Ice urged
this particular point without avail.
Why did not Mr.. Ellyson then CO.
operate with Gen. Lee and others in
the effort to have this committee
name the recipients OF these Sc
cret funds?
Referring to Mr.. Ellyson's COM
ments upon the campaign OF 1897.
| would say that the quotations
made by him from two letters Of
mine contain nothing reflecting
upon him, upon the party, or upon
me. do not know whether the
railroads contributed TO that cam
paign or not. was a subordinate
candidate on the State ticket, and
had nothing whatever to do with
the finances, save to suggest to Mr..
Ellyson the needs of the party as
reported to me. But concede that
The railroads did contribute to
that campaign, l would ask Mr.. ELY
5on did the money for this cam
paign come into his hands to be
distributed officially, or did 1t go
into private hands to be distributed,
as was done by Mr.. Thompson and
others in 1S91-1893. Mr.. Ellyson
no where ASSERTS or inumates that
ahis was done. so my skirts are
clean as respects this particular
campaign, according to his own state
ment.
"Mr. Ellyson again renews his at
tack upon the campaign of 1901,
when / was the nominee for Cover
nor On the 11th OF last month |
made a public statement that Mr..
Ellyson told me that the railroads
had not contributed to that campaign,
oIa> aagd In a neWsnaper inter7