Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1912-02-23
REPLY TO JUDGE NEMMAN'S
ARTICLE In THE SENTINEL

disclalm publfcalIy any attention on
his part to make personal charges OF
graft or theft against the Directors OF
the Turnpike Company. He intended
no such charges and did not care to
drag personalities into discussion
of principles. The Turnpike question
IS public, not private Yet. notwith-
standing the public disclaimer of the
writer, the Judge still insists that his
honor and integrity have been ruth
lessly attacked without the least
ground for so doing. If it affords
him any pleasure to nourish and cher
ish this conclusion,S the writer is the
] last person to deprive him..of the priv
ilege. Let him enjoy il fully and
with morbid satisfaction, gloat over
the. conclusion that he has drawn by
perverting plain language.
What a mockery the gentleman
makes of consistency? How far afield
he drifts from the lofty standards he
breaches in certain irrelevant pas
sages of his reply. What has his
i, lengthy discourse on the duties of
Corporation Directors 60 do with the
imposition of additional gates On
Shenandoah? Probably the explana-
ton of his ethical discourse lies in
this-the Judge in his first reply to the
writer plainly intimated that he was
one of those patriotic, public spirited
directors who devote their time to the
best interest of the people, and re-
ceive no compensation therefor. After
the second article which dispelled the
gentleman intimation, by few
| questions; such as; Twill the gentle
man make public the names of those
! who have been receiving salaries and
the amounts of their salaries? If the
State Directors have been receiving
no compensation, who beside the pri-
yate stockholders who own stock
enough to elect themselves to Office,
derive any financial benefit from the
road" which questions he did not see
fit to answer; he saw that he must
change his base. He did so in order
that he might again place himself in
the public-service- without--compen-
sation class, and INDUCED in long
discourse on the duties of Corporation
Directors; Shy whatsoever influence
or authority" elected in order to gain
his end.
How is all his sarcasm against
those who oppose him connected with
the question in argument. 1t is harm
less to be sure, but nevertheless en-
| tirely irrelevant.
The gentleman we'll says that he
"will not be cross-questioned." Ger
tainly he will not on the question of
additional toll gates; for had he ans
wered the questions pertinent to this
matter, and which any citizen has the
right to ask, no more toll gates would
be saddled on this County. Moreover,
the gentleman was not cross uestion-
ed. The questions were directly to
the point. This the gentleman saw,
and he carefully evaded them.
Does the gentleman mean to say
that citizen of Shenandoah cou nty
has no right to ask an explanation of
this additional toll gate affair? Is il
not permissible to raise a protesting
voice against manifest injustice? Is
it necessary to meekly take whate yer
the Judge would order.
But to turn again to the charges
which the Judge resented: First, that
the State receives no dividends. Why
| did the gentleman entirely omit this
charge in his last reply? If it is not
true, he can procure the proper evil
dence from the State Auditor.
The Judge evaded the second charge
viz: That the Turnpike Company has
been dominated by private parties
by introducing irrelevant matter,
The charge is sustained and founded
upon open, patent and notorious facts.
All outward appearances and facts
] make a prima facie foundation on
which to rest it. 1t is not groundless,
and only the Judge himself owing to
his intimate connection with the in.
ternal affairs of the Company, car
show that such is not the case. Righ1
now Zone of the State Directors are
publicallyactive in this move for addit
ional gates. None of them champion the
move as just. None of them appeared
before the Senate Committee to kill
the bill introduced for the purpose of
blocking the same. The gentleman is
himself generally recognized as one
OF the most active and constant man.
ayers of the road, and long has been.
He and the president, and formerly
several other private members of the
Company have transacted the business
OF the Company. They have been the
outward, active MANAGERS, which the
public has seen. The State Directors,
or the majority of them, appear only
now and then. They are silent mem
bers. The writer only inquired how
far they are in fact, ''mere fslre
heads He insinuated nothing. The
Judge failed to state how far they are.
He further omitted to state the percent
of State Directors that attend the
m ceilings, and who vote their proxies
when they are net present. He at
tempts toobscure the true meaning of
the writer by refuting charges which
we're never made. The writer did not
charge that, ''any directors tried to
influence any other director for his
own Interest," Or "that State Direc-
tors leant themselves to the machina-
tons of scoundrels." This is but
another perversion of plain language.
The Judge omits entirely in his last
reply the charge that private parties
have reaped all the financial benefit