The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-07-31
Mr.. BROOKS ELEVENTH HOUR REPLY
To DR. CANNON'S STATEMENT IN THE
RICHMOND V|RG|N|AN OF MAY n, 1915
DR.. James Cannon's Statement Concerning the Same

puTkS from WnlCn, AiIHoukH Aa' 50
I county. / had secured very few petit
tons The petitions began to come In
by letter and by wire. and while 1
was greatly Handicapped by the short
ness of the time / was satisfied
could haye secured majority of petit
( tions from a majority of the voters.
/ The next day, however, l saw Mr..
Brock again, and he then fatty stated
/ that he had made up his mind to vote
against the bill and that I need not
get any further signatures. / did not
discuss the matter with him any fur
Their. as I decided that II was a waste
of time to discuss any question with
I Senator who was so undecided ana
changeable in his views.
Z sixth. In 1914 1 preferred not to
/ have any discussions with Mr.. Brock
( bout the bill. as / had lost confidence
/ in him as representative OF the
! wishes of the people of the twenty
eighth District. He voted for the most
obnoxious of the Senate amendments;
voted for the bill when il was passed.
| loaded down with the obnoxious
! amendments, as did Senator Lesner,
/ the leader of the wet forces in the
Senate: but when the conference re-
I port came back, signed by Senator
Mapp and Delegate Williams, the tenn
perance leaders in the Senate and
House. respectively, Mr.. Brock cast his
vote to reject the conference report.
/ This was the crucial test, and the bin
/ was saved only by the vote of Lieu
tenant -Governor Ellyson,
7 Mr. Brock voted against Statewide
+ prohibition on September 20. and thus
did all that he could by his votes in the
/ Senate and In the general election to
/ defeat Statewide prohibition in Fir-
ginia.
! Seventh. In view OF the above facts
\ do not think that Mr.. Brock should
| he cent back to the Senate to represent
4 the Twenty Eight Senatorial District,
1 which gave over 1000 majority TOT
Statewide Prohibition. as he has clear
" shown that he has no sympathy
J with Statewide Prohibition, and as ms
REGARD proves that he was uncertain
\ and vaciliating In his actions, whereas
the Twenty eighth District should have
man who has positive convictions
and who will stand by those con-
victions.
j Denisls of MFR. Brooks Sweeping
u Statement.
bave No witnesses to some of the
statements made above, as to wnat
occurred between Mr.. Brock and my
, self and 1t is simply question as 10
memory.
j. which nerson Is correct in his
,arsinn OF what occurred De-
tween us? My memory is clear, ana
I cannot accept for myself the excuse
which Mr.. Brock presents to the pup
lie for my conduct in his letter In the
J Herald and In the Courier this morn
3 ing. namely, that j was excileu' oi
that my zeal has led me 10 put
construction on our conversations en-
tireIv unwarranted by his statements
70 NE. / have been In many ouohc
, descussions. both oral and written
and am not in the habit of making
: statements through either undue zeal
of excitement The statements which
| have made above are true to the
best Of my memory.
. There are certain sweeping denials'
however made by Mr.. Brock OF state
ments which are not dependent upon
: nv testimony alone, and Wn1ie u ny
been only a few hours since l saw Mr..
Rrock's statement / present below
statements signed by Hon. S. H. Love,
nresent member of the House of Dele
gates from LunenbUrg County, from
Hon George Bridgforth. former mem
her OF the House Of Delegates from
Lunenburg County, from Mr.. S. J..
Barrow, cashier First National Bank,
of Blackstone. from Mr.. George +.
!
from Mr.. A. c. .Beville, supervisor or
Nottoway County, from Mr. H L. Will
fliams. of the firm of Stokes Williams
! a. Company OF Blackstone, and FROM
$ Messrs w l.. Irby. w. F. Bergman
!, and l., f., Bradley. citizens II stand
ing and character OF Nottoway Coun-
> ty.
went in person through the coun-
try to the homes of most of these
: / ON
: came to Richmond this afternoon TO
get this letter in the Richmond Vir-
ginan of Saturday morning. / am
j, satisfied that I could secure scores
i of such signed statements from citi-
: Gems of the district did time permit.
. / ask the voters to read these state
! ments, and then ask themselves
whether they will accept the state
: ments of these gentlemen, or the UNI
: supported statement made by Mr..
Brock only four days before the cleo
|, ton. Why should these gentlemen OF
. standing and character misrepresent
! the facts? Indeed why should l mis-
represent the facts? I have lived in
the Twenty eighth Senatorial Dis
: trict for over twenty years. | have
: never sought or desired a political
. Office. but as citizen and a voter OF
the Twenty eighth District, I have a
, right to a voice and a vote in the Sc
lection of a State Senator, and for
the reasons set forth in this state
ment. I do not consider Mr.. Brock
suita BILE man to represent the Twen-
ty-eighth Senatorial District, which
gave ma joritv of over 900 for
!, Statewide Prohibition. and I only re-
greet that there Is so little time in
...-.-...-.-- zSsaMSrrI