The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-07-25

Editor Rfcnmond NtrgtnAn:
Sir.--I enclose you an editorial signed, which
will appear in the Blackstone Courier tomorrow,
Friday. the 25tn instant wish this to APPEAR
in The virginian OF the same date. as an ad-
vertisement on the same page as my article OF
last week. Very truly yours
w. A. LAND.
Blackstone, Va, July cath.
why do not the Messrs. Bryan chief swners
of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, answer the
further questions necessary to establish their
full connection with the passage of the bill by
the last legislature in which they wen inter-
ested. which questions were courteously asked
by me one week ago? Do they not recognize
that they owe something to themselves and to
the people OF Virginia? Can they possibly
their recent statement Of These are the facts"
as all the facts connected with the case? Or
they open their mouth. they put Their foot In
it?" Have they finally learned that f1rther at
tempt OF deceps;on would be fruitless and that
the old quotation. 20 what tanglsi web we
weave when first practice to deceive" Ia
coming home to them?
Let it not be forgotten just here that this
controversy is not of my choosing The five
little Bryans OF Richmonds suburbs in their
big paper the Times-Dispatch, mate vicious
and lbelous attack upon the general assembly.
of which / was member. ! denied their as
sertions and demanded the proof. They have
never attempted to bring forward any proof
or explanation of these charges. How any hon.
orable paper, man or men, can bring charges
against any man or body and refuse to produce
the evidence when called upon is beyond my
moral ethics one must search to md justifca-
ton for such actions. Despairfng of having
them produce evidence to sustain their accusa-
tons then brought charges against these Ave
little BrySns. I promised the people of Viz
ginia that l would produce the evidence for
levery charge made. l renew TINT promise here
In my last article, which APPEARED one week
lago, only took up the charge IT their lobbying
which they had partly admitted in their signed
questions in that article the answers to which
would throw further light upon the point at
issue. These five little Bryans refuse to come
upon the witness stand which tnecessitates my
introducing further evidence to answer the
questions asked They admitted that they had
employed certain lawyers to appear before the
committee which had their bill under considera-
ton. Among these Mr.. w. d. Cardwell
Let call Mr.. Caldwell to the stand. What
the case which had been brought about by the
attorneys of the BryanA Messrs. Nc
CURE. Riley and Bryan (and be remember
| ed here that the Bryan member of this firm
Is one of the FIVE Bryans) Mr.. Cardwell says:
this is the largest matter ! ever had before
the general assembly OF Virginia / acted in
the matter entirely in conference with and in
connection with the aforesaid firm. and while
the matter was pending was in daily and almost
hourly communication with MCGUIRE the
subject making move without his knowl-
edge and approval and nothing was done with
members Of his arm, AND OF HIS CLIENTS.
/ (The capitals here used are mine). The result
of our efforts was that a bill. was passed and
signed by the governor"
| Now. who is Mr.. w. d. Cardwell the witness
who gives the above testimony? He 10 prom
inent practcing attorney CT the city OF Rich
sembly. ex-offlcer Of that body. having been
honored by his fellow members by the election
to its speakership while q member of the house.
From his experience in Legislative matters he
is often employed in different capacities. the
craving OF bills, the appearance before COM
mittees and the solicitation of members to vote
for against certain bills In which he Is inter-
ested paid attorney. Being an ex-member
and x-oflcer OF the general assembly, he has
the privileges of admittanCo either cham
Der at any time He can talk to members upon
the floor OF either house at any time he may
tsee nt.
| Now let us see what the Ave little organs
in their big paper, the Times Dispatch. have to
per in its issues Of June Sth TO which editorial
i first took exception Let us see how they view
a man. who an ex-member and ex-ofhcer OF
the general assembly. appears before that body
as a lobbist. Here Is what they said
| "A second evil of the lobby in this State Is
that ex-members and ex-offlcers OF both the
senate and the house are given the privilege
Of the floor in both houses and misuse It There
are many upright men who this right
the most dsgraceful way. The ex-member
or ex-oficer of the general assembly OF Vir-
sinia who prostitutes his honorable privilege IN
The chief of the legislative gunner in Virginia
and the most notorious lobbyists is the common
est vioator of this principle. The United States
senate may pass a rule denying the rights OF
the floor to ex-members and ex-offlcers, and the
general assembly OF Virginia should pass such
Was worse Of bad grace" shown
towards any man than these St Patricks have
shown towards Mr. Cardwell? l do not say,
nor will they say. that they had him in view
when pennng the above editorial l would not
dare do this. nor neither would they. although
there Ave Of them. But like their charges
against the general assembly, they make insin-
uations which leads the public to believe things
which they dare not accept the responsibility
of direct charges to individuals. Let me ask
them, is he THE chief of the legislative gun
men in Virginia" which they describe In their
above editorial? Would they employ such men
even though they had a 100000 bill at stake +?
If their bill just, why employ lobbyists in
the first case? Not only did you employ them.
but you paid the biggest fee this one ever
ceived
Now tell the people Of Virginia. you five little
Bryans just what you do think about employing
lobbyists to appear before the general assembly.
Tell them why 1t was you were crying stop thief.
while engaged In -the-sanae- busness.-Why 1t
was you criticising the general assembly
for permitting lobbyists, while you were paying
them the biggest price received to ply
their vocation YaM 1t was who had them there.
You 1t is who criticises them for being there.
Now / have helped you to maintain in part
your charge that the general assembly is con-
trolled by these people, won't you come for
ward and bring further proof to sustain your
charges.
There is another question I asked in my last
article. Were there any others besides those
named by you and by me employed in connec-
ton with this bi1l?" / think l might answer
this question II pressed to do so and give the
atura of arch onDloymenf thara ANY