The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-05-17
CAP TAIN CURTIS
ANSWERS JONES.
Says There Has Been Confusion
Over Three Bills Offered
in House.
DUE TO MISUNDERSTANDING
Richmond Member Declares
Jones Didn't Substantial
Lobbying Charge.

Maintaining that Representative
William ~. Jones has not substunti-
ated what has been termed rs his
lobbying charges. and arguing tina,
the whole affair arose from mis-
understanding ON the part OF Mcssrs
| Wexford and Jctt Captain John a
| Curtis to-day presents communities
| ton which he believes clears up the
| whole subject He asserts that there
has been confusion over three scpa
rate bills which he introduced
The Richmond member of the HOUSE
OF Delegates says he presented two
bills given to him by w. D. Cardwell
! allowing the employment OF outside
capital in the oyster business in Vir-
Eina. But the bill which Mr.. Jones
referred to in his speech, designed to
| prevent ,menhaden nshing III Chesa-
peake Bay, Captain Curtis insists was
| his own measure. and that MIR. Card ;
well did not suggest II. request its
introduction, nor was in any way in
| tercsted In It.
The statement OF Captain Curtis is
| as follows:
TO the Editor of The Times Dispatch
| William ~. Jones, in his speech al
| the Academy of Music, Richmond. on
| May 5 made the following charge:
| II charge that Democratic repre-
| sentative Of the city of Richmond. al
| the last Legislature, introduced n bill
| which affected one of the greatest
and one of the most beneficial interests
| In this Commonwealth. charge that
| when he was asked by two of his
brother members why he introduced
| such bill he said that he did II to
| help certain distinguished machine
| politician and lobbyist. who hau
| written the bill and asked him 10
| Introduce II in order that the lobbyist
might go TO the people whose in
tcrests were affected and get employ
| nlent as Il lobbyist TO defeat 1t
He was asked to whom he referred,
| but lie would not give tho name. say
| ing that the result would be the same
| as when MIR. Glass made charges
| against newspaper and the paper
admitted lis identity.
| On reading the paper on the morn
| ing OF May felt that Mr.. Jones had
| reflected on the Richmond members
| of tho Legislature. and came TO the
! conclusion that 1t must be in refer
ence to bill that ! introduced to
prohibit mcnhaden fishing In Chesa-
| pcake Bay. learned that Mr.. Jones
| WAS in tho city. I went TO his head
quarters 81 Murphy's Hotel In tho fore
noon. asked him IL he referred to me.
and he said that he did. told hin, Il
| was absolutely false. He said lie could
prove II by r. Carter Wexford and
r. A. lett, members of the I.egisla
tire from his district. told him he
could not prove 1t by them
Jones Claimed Proof
| On May Is there was published in
The Times Dispa tch letter, dated
May 10. from MIR. Jones, together with
i the statements OF Messrs. Wexford and
Jctt, in which he says that they com
| rictely cover and abundantly justify.
what was said by me In my Richmond
speech In relation 10 the introdu cton
OF bin seriously affecting one Of
Virginia's greatest industries. AS sub
scquentiy explained by me. this bill
was to prohibit the catching of men
haden fish in the waters of the Chesa
peake Bay. and was Introduced by Mr.
John \. Curtis" MIR Jones does not
i'toye mis- charge that offered bill
10 help certain distinguished ma :
Chine politician and lobbyist who had
written the bill, and asked him tme)
to- Introduce II In order that the lob
byist might 30 TO the people whose In
,erests were affected and get employ
mont as lobbyist TO defeat it,; there
fore, dismiss him and stand BY my
card of May In The Times Dispatch
As to the statement of Mcssrs Well
ford and lett, desire TO say that there
Is little difference in their statement
and my understanding. and whatever
diHerence there Is evidently comes
from a confusion In the minds of these
gentlemen of the three hills intro
dnced by me, to-wit, two on January
20 1910. and one on February 5, 1910
Mr.. W. D.. Cardwell brought me two
bills In reference to the oyster indus
Try OF the State, which l introduced
on January Is, 1910. One was referred
70 the Committee for Courts Of JUS
nee ana the other to the Committee
on the Chesapeake and Its tributaries
These bills amended certain sections
OF the lode Of Virginia, which pro-
hlbitcd nonrcsidcnts from 'plnntinr
oysters in this State or even becoming
| partners or holding stock In n com
nany engaged in such business. The
opJect Of The amendments was TO re-
peal THIS bar against nonresidents in
Nestihg money in the oyster business
In Virginia. Mir. Cardweu Is person
ally Interested and thoroughly ac-
4 quainted with the oyster busincss and
u was his opinion that tho enactment
o. me proposed bills intv law would
promote this industry by Inviting out.
SIDE capital to become invested therein
agreed with him fully and intro
dnced the bills aforesaid. which only
hah Tor their object the building III
OF this great Virginia industry This
and this alone. prompted the intro
i duttion of these bills.
Offered oIcnhuiIen DIii
ON February i presented a bill
which was referred to the Committee
on chesapeakc and Its Tributaries
prohibiting the catching of menhadcr
i's,i In the water of Virginia To b,
| converted into fertilizer or oil Thi,
III MI Cardweil drew for me AT my
REQUEST, and that was absolutely al
Of his connection with H. He did no
I suggest il, request lis Introduction
nor was he in asy way interested il
IT, iii
The two bills referred to by Mr.