The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-07-11
Wayside Chats With
Old Virginia Editors

Old Virginia Editors
1t Is rather wearisome to be told
continually that ono knows nothing Of
what no speaks, especially when the
self-satisfied individual addicted to
that practice does not or cannot make
things clearer. 1t can be borne how
ever. when one is sure of ones ground
in which case good-natured tolerance
for the intirmities of others causes one
to lose irritation.
1t is different however. when to
charges of ignorance the carper adds
charges OF unfairness. Tho Times Dis
patch knows something of the polit-
ical farce lately enacted In Washington
by politicians interested in seeing all
Wilson men denied Office In the Ninth
Congressional District. and it does not
care how often the Stanton News ac-
cuses il of ignorance There Is one
characteristic of the News, however
which, frankly, we do not like. It Ia
especially disagreeable to us because
we have always held that publication
and Its editor in high esteem. and can
not understand why 1t should allow
craftsmanship to become so intense as
to becloud Its usually clear vision. This
Is It's tendency to assail the motives
or those who do not agree with II
and TO call them names.
This rather lengthy introduction is
apropos of recent editorial in the
Staunton News. With the many state
ments contained therein we will have
nothing to say for tho simple reason
that they are mostly Of an inter
pretlvc nature. and the News is at lib
erty to interpret them to the advantage
OF Its own faction II it so wishes The
Times Dispatch Is not concerned with
factions. 1t would merely call attention
to this statement from the News:
The Richmond Times Dispatch edi-
torialiy says. in speaking of the set
Element of the Ninth District patron
age fight BY the agreement of all
hands to postmasters primary. that
there will be universal approval OF
the decision of tho Virginia Senators
to withdraw from the untenablc posi-
ton that the President of the United
States must surrender his constitu-
tional rights to them
NO moro unfair statement Of any
mans position ever was made by any
newspaper than this statement of tho
position OF the Virginia Senator's They
never held such a position; consequent
ly they never could withdraw from it,"
To refute the declaration OF tho
News that our statement as to the po-
sition of the Senator'S Is unfair. VIC
have only to reproduce here the words
with which that newspaper defines
their position:
HE tBurleson), therefore, passed
the matter up to the Virginia Senator's
They were asked by Mr.. Burleson to
make recomn endations and replied
that they would do so II these recon-
mendntions were accepted. provided
the men named were of unquestioned
integrity. Mr.. Burleson refusing to
promise anything like that, the Sena-
tors thcreupon declared that they would
not nominate men only to have them
rejected, and that they would pass UP
the whole matter. Mr.. Burleson then
was free to name whomsoever he
would, and he. Ia turn, refused TO do
So"
We submit that there is no differ
encc between these two statements
The Times Dispatch declared that the
Senators would make no nominations
unless the President. through the Post
master-General would agree in ad-
vance to surrender constitutional
rights. The News says that they
would make no recommendations I'M
less the recommendations were to be
accepted, with the one proviso that
they be men OF integrity. To ACCEPT
or reject recommendations is the Pres
idents constitutional right. His is the
appointing power.
The News Is absolutely wrong how
ever. In saying that Mr.. Burlcson was
free to make appointments without
recommendations. What good Is IL to
appoint IL the Senate. under it's fool
rules of senatorial courtesy. is going
10 reject the appointments at the in
stances Of one or two peeved Sena-
tors? The Senators would make no
recommendations unless Burleson
agreed TO accept them. Burleson would
make no appointments without rec
concentrations, because they would be
held up. as he thought. That he
thought right is proven by the several
cases i'm which his appointments were
held up without any reason whatever
saw" that one or both of the Virginia
senators had not been consulted, or
being consulted, their advice was not
accepted
While the News is giving a history
OF the matters in the Ninth District
will IL be kind enough to explain all
about the meddling with civil service
offices. and tell US why ono or two
appointments made without the kind
permission of the Virginia Senators
are not confirmed? VIII 1t also tell
us why it If that il the Postmaster
General lis free to name whomsocver
he would" an honorable and capable
man named by him for the Danville
post Office has been rejected, and WHY
he was rejected?