The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-07-23
CAMPBELL AGAIN
AF TER WILLIAMS
Says Acknowledgement Is Try
ing to Becloud the
Issue.

Absolutely contrary TO fact" is the
way Fletcher c. Campbell, the attor-
ney who was defeated for re election
as district school superintendent of
Amherst County, characterzcs an at
tempt on the part OF Attorney General
Williams TO shift the Blame for Mr..
CampbelIs defeat from his own shout
| dcrs To those OF the State BOARD OF
! Education In n renewal of the fiery
correspondence between the two men.
| Replying TO the Attorney Generals re-
cent letter answering the charges
! that his seat the State Board of
/ Education had been used for the adj
vancement of his political fortunes.
Mr.. Campbell declares that his faith in
the Superintendent OF Public 1nstruc-
! ton and the Board of Education is
/ mistaken.
In his recent rebuttal OF the charges.
| Attorney General Williams declared
that he had been influenced to vote
, against MIR Campbells reelection
purely on the grounds that the appli-
cant was a victim of an aggravated
case of tuberculosis. and by the nNcd
rule OF the Board OF Education that
district superntendents must be sound
enough physically TO make frequent
visits 10 the schools Of the district. In
the letter just received from Lynch
burg Mr.. Campbell denies that he Is
suffering from tuberculosis in any
form, and asserts that the Attorney
General disrcgarded health certificates
! OF three physicians in favor OF the
diagnosis Of Senator Bland Massie.
The Letter.
/ Mr. Campbelis letter follows:
Lynchburg. Va. July II. 1913
Hon. Samuel w Williams Richmond
Dear sir.-Rcplying to your letter OF
.lG Ga no
Richmond papers. / wish 10 call your
attention to the fact that you yourself
are responsible for the publicity Of
which you complain. AS voter whose
support you had solicited ! asked YOU
! the truth OF charges which bordercd
letter until you forced TO DO so
by Its publication. and then you say
You did not consider an answer due
me- and at the same time seek TO be-
cloud the issue and create the impress
sion that my letter was merely the
outpouring of a disappointed office
seeker.
/ did not seek n controversy with
you. and would not now answer your
letter but for the fact that you pre-
tend 10 construe my former letter as AN
attack on the State Board of Educa-
ton. and then presume TO defend that
board. OF course, / realize that in this
you AFRO seeking 10 becloud the Issue
which involves nothing but your in
dividual integrity. My loyalty to the
Department OF Public Instruction and
my devotion to the cause of education
! is beyond question. When you intimate
that your vote against was at the
instance Of the Superintendent OF Pub
! lie Instruction. you know this intima
| ton is absolutely contrary to fact
You know that the Superintendent Of
/ Public Instruction, the one man on tho
/ board who knOwg tlOrOuEhlV the
school situation In Amherst County.
voted for me- and, you say. "a fixed
rule" of the superintendent OF Public
Instruction made me ineligible.
( l have no attack to make on the
state Board of Education. but when a
man puts himself up AZ a candidate for
the Office OF Attorney General of the
State of Virginia, with the charges
against him about which | inquired. an
| answer is due me, as well as every
other voter
1t is easy to make categorical denials,
and the State Board of Education needs
no defense. AS matter of fact, I
| knew and II was generally known here
a month before the meeting of the
! State Board OF Education. for whom
YOU would vote in matter which. by
virtue of your Office of Attorney Cen
eral. you were to sit In a judicial ca
pacity; yet YOU could not possibly have
known at that time who the candidates
would be. In my case you disrcgarded
the certificates of three physicians and
my personal appearance in Richmond.
the only evidence of health before the
board. and accepted the diagnosis OF
Senator Massie. If you had not prom
Used your vote prior to the meeting OF
the board. do you think you have given
the people reasonable explanation OF
your reply TO the gentleman from Am
herst. why didn't you boys tell me
that month ago?" Should judge
be told the evidence in case a month
before ho sits in Judgment? There
were two other candidates besides Mr..
Scott and myself-one, graduate OF
Harvard. who fled his application just
before the board met. His chances
were lost. far as Mr.. Williams was
concerned. under the month ago" rule.
Your attempt to draw the attention
of the public from the issue and to
centre ii upon questions totally tr-
relevant is. to say the least. not very
complimentary to tho intelligence OF
the people of Virginia.
/ am sending n copy OF this letter
to the Richmond Times Dispatch for
publication.
Very truly yours.
i +. C. CAMPBELL