The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-07-31
To the Citizens of the Twenty eighth
Senatorial District:

to you this letter at this late day
! hoping that you may receive and read
! IL before the primary election day,
! Tuesday, August 3.
This (Friday) morning, July Ss'
only four days before the primary
election. Mr.. r.. *. Brock, one or the
I candidates for the State Senate rom
! the Twenty-eighth Senatorial District
published signed statement In the
FarmviIle Herald and in tne Black
stone Courier. in which he makes
sweeping denials Of statements made
by myself in an article, which was
published in The Richmond Virgtnian
on May IA, eleven weeks ago. Mr.
Brock selected the last issue of these
| county papers before the primary cleo
ton, thus preventing the possibility OF
tany reply by me in the columns OF
those papers before the primary cleo
| ton on August 3.
/ Such tactics should be condemned
! by every honorable and fair-minded
! citizen, no matter what may be MS
views on Statewide prohibition. and
| no man Is suitabl to represent the
! Twenty eighth District of Virginia
j who is willing 10 resort to such tactics.
! ! should certainly expect to forfeit
! the respect of fair-minded men had ]
( MalIEd unIli the last HpSSlptt lSFuE VI
/ a paper before making my statements
/ concerning Mr.. Brock. Those state
ments were purposely made far in ad-
vance Of the primary so that Mr..
| Brock could not nave any right to
4 claim that he had not been fairly
| treated. Moreover, my article OF
| May IA. concerning Mr.. Brock, would
| not have been written had not Mr..
| Brock published a statement In The
4 Richmond Virginian few days be-
/ fore in which he declared that he
|, could see mo reason for the raising
of this (prohihition) issue in this
! campaign, except in an attempt to
/ punish one who did not in all matters
vote as some of the most active sup
porters Of the enabling act thought
he should do"
As Mr.. Brock I'm this statement evil
IDENTITY referred to myself. ! replied 10
/ his statement aud gave the reasons
why the issue had been raised in the
campaign in the Twenty eighth Dis
trict and why I did not think Mr.
Brock ought to be reelected to the
Senate of Virginia. My statement on
May IA was clear explicit and full,
and the reply which Mr.. Brock now
makes at the eleventh hour could have
been made equally as we'll the very
next day, if Mr., Brock had~iesired Ia
make 1t at that time, but he pre-
ferred TO wait, and now, four day:
before the election, he makes his
statement. He says:
T DIR Cannon Is I'm error in this mat
ter. At no time did l make DIR. Cam
non or anyone else AN unqualified
promise To vote for the Enabling Act
/ or tell him or anyone else that / was
| satisfied that ma iority of the voters
! of the Twenty eighth District desired
the passage of the bill. nor did tell
, DIR. Cannon tisat l was satisfied thai
the sentiment I'm Iunenburg and Gum
berland was I'm favor of the bill, and
that Ii was unnecessary to send any
more petitions from these counties
nor did consciously discourage the
circulation OF these petitions. ! was
ldesirous of having all the light
lcould."
. Now in reply to these sweeping
statements made by Mr.. Brock, have
to say;
= First--That Mr.. Brock told me thai
III he should he satisfied that ma
! 1ority Of the voters of the Twenty
, eighth Senatorial District favored the
Enabling Act. he would vote for tht
bill
Setond-He said later on that ne
: lLupnenburg or Cumberland, as he was
satisfied of the sentiment of those two
icounties. but that he would ike x
: have more petitions from Nottoway
Amelia and Prince Edward
Thirri--Iater on he told me that he
was satisfied that a majority of th'
voters of the district favored the pass
age of the bill and that need mo-
send him any more petitions.
. a q
without notifying me that he hat
changed his mind, he stated to re
! porters for the Richmond evening pa
pers that he had found that he hat
] not received a sufficient number o.
names. having received only twenty
/ one per cent" and that he had de-
cided 10 vote against the Enabling
Act Seeing this publication In tht
| noon edition of the evening paper.
went at once to see Mr.. Brock ano
told him what the evening papers had
said and stated that I took it foi
granted that there must be some mis-
take as l could not reconcile this pun
ilication with his statement to me. tina,
ne was satisfied that majority OF
the voters of his district desired the
passage of the bill and that ] neec
mot send him any more petitions.
He admitted that he had told ms
that he was SaIlsHeu as 10 liie oeH
timent of his people, and that he ex'
pected to vote for the bill, but that the
, night before he had gone over the
petitions with some friends and had
found that there were only twenty SIX
per cent of the voters of the district
on the petition. and that he then de-
cided that he would vote against the
bill at once reminded him OF the
fact that he had stopped my work OF
getting petitions. and that he had said
several days before that / need not
get any more from Iunenburg and
Cumberland. as he was satisfied of the
sentiment of the people OF those coun-
ties; that II was not fair to cut out
petitions from those large counties
and still estimate. on the basis OF the
total vote of the district when petitions
were being sent from only three coun-
ties in the district. l Furthermore re-
j minded hin, that there were still four
DAYS left in which to secure petitions
and that 7 thought that he should
modify his statement in the paper 10
Tread provided he did not receive pc
tjttons from, a majority OF the voters
of his district" He agreed TO this
and did see the reporters of the even
ling papers, and they published IN the
last edition that he had added that
i condition to his statement made II
i the earlier edition, as an examination
H.