The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-06-23
Side Stepping the Issue

OF course we expected 1t. in fact, 30 confident
was this expectation that we could almost In
advance read the reply of the Richmond Times
Dispatch to the challenge of the Courier made
in its last issue anent the charge OF the Ilmes-
Dispatch that THE General Assembly of VIZ
jginia is. to large extent, general assembly,
of those who do the bidding of the offceholders
of Virginia" We called upon the Times-Dis-
patch to produce its evidence. If 1t had any.
bearing out this charge naming those members
of the legislature thus subservient so that II
there any who were innocent, they could
escape the wholesale indictment drawn by the
Times Dispatch. And what is this reply? Simply
a. reteration, Of charges without scintilla OF
supporting evidence. But the repetition of
high sounding generalities and the heaping up OF
ill considered invectives does not produce evil
dence.
The Times-Dispatch endeavors to evade the
point at issue by saying these charges have
been made by it before and why wait to this
date to take exceptions, Speaking for this
paper we assert that this has been done on more
than occasion in the past. We do not go
to the trouble to quote these here for the rea-
son that they have no bearing upon the point
at issue at this time. However. we will say in
passing that at least one of these statements
called forth a rejoinder from another daily in
the State while the Times Dispatch paid no
attention to it We will also say in passing
that the argument of the Times Dispatch OF
delayed retort does not fit very well when 1t Is
known that the Times-Dispatch was called down
hard for its charges made in its Issue of the
sth by it's daily competitor. The Richmond
later been called to our attention by a friend, 1t
having escaped our notice at tho time, but
waited until two country weeklies took issue
Why did the Times-Dispatch not reply to The
virginian? Why has 1t not yet done this?
But this has nothing to do with the point
at issue.
Again the Times-Dispatch. calling the editor
of this paper by name and since it has done
this we Will avail ourselves later of the same
privilege, says that IT members of that body
(the general assembly, desired to take excep-
so from the floor. they could have done so
under their Legislative privilege. but only one
man member Of the senate ma IN all that body
Der of the house, could have challenged our
indictment Of the lobby, but he did not do
So" No. nor has he challenged your indictment
of the lobby at this time. but your indictment
of the general assembly. Further still, Mr.. Land
did prepare resolution, under the personal
privilege right, to ask of the Times Dispatch
just what he is asking at this time to make good
it's charge against the, general assembly. but
was dissuaded by older members from present.
ing same This fact be substantiated, If
necessary.
But this has no bearing upon the point at
Issue.
But suppose the Courier, Mr. Land has
never previously noticed these charges Of the
Times Dispatch, does that in any way deny
him that right at this time? Because one does
not take issue at the first opportunity, but for
bears, does this take from him the liberty to
exercise his rights when forbearanceS ceases
to be a. virtue? Certainly not: and Mr.. Land
is taking advantage of this right at this period.
And now to the point raised by us last week.
In order to make this perfectly plain, SO there
;
no cause for invectives against the officehoders.
in meeting the issue; no occasion for repeating
charges unsustained by proper evidence, we say
taking the liberty to call names, did the
Times Dispatch, that w. A. Land, a member
OF the general assembly of Virginia, of the ses-
sion Of 1912 denies the charge made by the
Times Dispatch. by Mr.. Bryan the Messrs.
Bryan. chief controller controllers of the
Times Dispatch, ~that[.to very great degree,
the general assembly of Virginia Is the tool
OF the 'plunderbund.' Mr.. Land also denies
that "the general assembly OF Virginia is, to
a large extent general assembly of those who
do the bidding of the oficeholders Of Virginia, "
and calls upon Mr. Bryan or the Messrs. Bryan,
to prove his or their assertion. Let he or them
give the names of those members Of the general
assembly controlled by the "plunderbund." the
stockholders If this can be done, so. as stated
in our former article, If there be any who are
innocent, this fact may be known. Mr.. Bryan.
or the Messrs. Bryan, have drawn the indict-
ment against the whole body of the general
assembly. AS a member of the general assem-
bly, w. A. Land denies this Indictment not only
for himself but for majority of It's members
II -tnr indictment Is proven to be good all right
Let those WHO may be proven guilty suffer the
consequences. II not, then II becomes gross
and vindictive libel. What 10 expected and re-
qured its names dates and all other particulars,
specifications and evidence necessary to sustain
the indictment drawn by the Times Dispatch.
or by Mr.. Bryan or the Messrs Bryan. Mr..