The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-04-21
IT ALI. DEPENDS UPON THE POINT OF
VIEW

THE Richmond FiYosn,an ~ pubIishfd
of the capital city OF the STATE II Other
formation lacking, that fact alone tcoud
carry the conviction that Il ,eostid be neIi +
informed It's adme tcoald suggest that u
could discuss matters pcih precision. Nor
moald oae crpccf II to heap rioleHt abuse
upon courts Of he state. The Vtrginida
needs 10 cSatuots accuracy lis observe
ftoas and at the same time mental potse
IT is probably unnecessary 10 state that
some Of the poper's m,sinfovp,atson as 10 th,s
section Of Virptmsa aad the aqtenspefate Ian
padge ased in publishing n prom pit these ref
egences. Nor noaid that atsef sna-ruat
comment. but mophap The Yirciasdn hos
mashed end pnt false motions into he heads
OF some readers ,oho DO NOT HOOK behind ats
bald statements
The FirQiniaa Is nnghtD indsanort and
heaps fierce deuanctatson upon Norfolk citp
because neither OF t,eo magistrates Of Nor
fofk cossnty seould f4o'1te his oath ard con-
rtct contrary TO the lam. as hc interpreted
IT, turfmen charged soith ,1oIatino the anti-
betting stotutes Of the state II does not
seem 10 hare bothered The Fiyo,nton that
Norfolk city had nothino TO do 1otth The
eases. Bat apparently the alleged ofeases
occurred Heor enough 10 Norfolk city 10
nect the requirements OF The V.rginjdn as
TO the matter Of aecr,ucY.
"F,l the hearing Of the indictments against
the turfntea, especially those last, the state
ob1p represented and the proceedings
wcve judicial and orderly IN euery respect.
The Tirginsom rs decidedly 4ntemperate in
loHgaage ,chen II describes the outcome Of
them. as 10 which II has no rst-aand infor-
nation, as q .3udsctdl miscarriage. and Hbcis
oae 81 the best Judges Of the State ,ohest II
proaoumces a. judicial farce the hearing Of
the indictments against those icho
charged scttA fraud in connection NTH me
primary election in this city last August,
'The Richmond rtr9tntan should cndeduor
to enlighten and steady ttscIf''
This was printed anropos of an editorial pub;
lshed in The Tirotninn, in which attention was
called sharply TO the fact that. notwithstanding
the law in Virginia which specifically prohibits
bookmaking. twelve indictments against book
makers at the jamestown track near Norfolk
city were dismissed because of insufficient evi
denee."
The evidence, according TO newspaper reports
was to the effect that bookmaking had been con
Quoted at the races, and in view OF the fact tina,
that was what the indictments charged, and tina,
the indictments were based on violations of the
anti-bookmaking laws, The Firgtniam believed
and still believes, that IL WAS sufficient. to war
rant conviction
The Virginion has quite as much respect forthe
courts OF the State as The Landmark and prob
ably holds the Law of this Commonwealth more
sacred than its Norfolk contemporary, since We
have not iuterposed any defense for violators OF
the code
The Lo,adwnrks editorial is entirely point
less and footless. except for the allegation thai
the State when II pronounces judicial farce
the hearing Of the Indictments against those who
were charged with fraud in connection with the
primary election in this city last. August
No libel or reflection whatsoever was intend
ed any judge criticised or censured b,
discovered In the Norfolk primary Thos,
believed TO be responsible for it were indicted
The indictments were dismissed because the Law
was deemed insufficient to the primary
The Supreme Court of this State has held tina
the law is amply broad to cover just such OF
lenses as committed in the Second Dis
triot last August. Have those responsible fo
the fraud been punished II not does that fac
not prove judicial farce
The Landmark i'll afford to accuse IN,
Vsyaanann of snaccnraey when ID printed on tn.
same page which II took The Virgntaa I.
Of it's report Of the trial of the bookmakers
The VirctntaH hatters itself by believing il is :
trine more steady than The Landmark In that
i has not topped over TO the b6oEmakers side o
been accused OF doing everything in it's powe
10 sustain these violators OF the law Can tn
L0ndrsark say as much?
It In really too bad that the fair chaste, an.
spctless city OF Norfolk should have been libele,
BY the statement that II was to blarn
Tor the non-enforcement OF the law. when /,
/ truth. ~ The Landmark would have us believe
1 the whoie affair occurred outside OF the cornc
yate hounds. What makes a city. Citizens. q
y renF1A Are not James r Prince william A
EstounE. 8. G.. Davidson and ]. C. Prince citizen,