The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1917-08-07
SENATOR MATHEWS AND
REV. DAVID HEPBURN
EXCHANGE LETTERS
Norfolk Man Still Insists Mr.. Pol.
lard Was Badly Treated, But
Richmond Man Comes Back.
FIRM FOR DRY LEADERS
Points Out That Question to BE De-
cided Is Not One OF Neracity Be-
tween Private Citizens, But Quail
fcations of Candidates.

on Saturday night, August 4, The
Virginian received a letter from Sem
ator E. C. Mathews, OF Norfolk. en-
closing an open letter to Rev. David
Hepburn, assistant superintendent OF
the Anti Saloon league. for pubiica-
ton AS Mr.. Hepburn was out of
the city. Senator Mathews letter was
held until his return to give him an
opportunity to make reply in tho
same issue with Senator Mathews
letter. The communications of both
gentlemen follow:
Editor Virginian:
Sr,--I am sending herewith for
publication in The Virginian a copy
of a letter replying to Rev, David
Hepburn's letter to me and publish
ed in The Richmond Virginian In
your issue of August 2. In the inter
est OF common justice and fair play.
respectfully ask that you give this
communication, as prominent a place
in your paper as that accorded Mr..
Hephurn's letter TO me.
Yours very truly.
f, c. MATHEWS.
Norfolk, Va, Aug. 8.
Rev. David Hepburn.
Richmond. Virginia
Dear Sir,--I have read the copy of
your letter to me of the Ind instant,
published in todays Richmond rTr-
sinian
notwithstanding your denials and
charges. l repeat--and ! think that
your letter fully bears me out--that
the only matter discussed between YOU
Mr.. Pollard, and myself on the Vir-
Eina Beach car was the question Of
the unfair treatment which had been
accorded to Mr.. Pollard by The Rich
mond Virginian You know that this
is true. and your endeavor to make 1t
appear. from certain language In Mr.
Poilard's letter TO you of the l4th in
slant, that there was general crit
icism by Mr. Pollard of the temper
ance leaders OF the state, Is thorough.
ly disingenous Mr.. Pollard did com
plain of ths way in which The Vir'
gilman under the domination of Do&
tor Cannon. had treated him. but THU
was the sum and substance of his
/ complaint.
&" say that your letter discloses--un.
Intentionally on your part-that WIN
Il say is true. You state that, upor
your return TO Richmond YOU inves
tigated Mr.. Poilards charges. Wha
charges did you investigate? Let you
own letter give the answer; Charge
against The Richmond Virginian. thu
/ only charges which had been mad
or discussed
And so far were you. apparently
from being" displeased with Mr. Pol
lard on account of these charges
far were you. apparently from think
ing that they were sufficient to caus
you to withdraw your support fror
Mr. Pollard--that you promised to IN
yestigate them. ard to use. your effor
to have Mr.. Pollard treated with great
er fairness in the future
In your letter to Mr.. Pollard, an
nouncing the withdrawal of your sup
port you assured him of your con
tinued high personal regard for hin
Notwithstanding your withdrawal. an
put the latter solely upon the groun
OF his attitude toward certain temper
snce leaders and the necessity for har
nony in the prohibition ranks-I
your letter to me however. got sa
that we~s we've. at that tire of IN
opinion that Mr.. Pollard had been un
Just In his complaint against TIL
Richmond Virginian; that he was NOR
interested IN an anti-machine victor
than in the cause Of prohibition, an
that you had found that he ha
played a dirty trick on the manage
nent OF The Richmond Virginia, an
had. when caught. lied about tan
that Il was for these reasons that 70
had been compelled to withdraw you
support from him. I am willing Z
leave TO the people Of the state IL
question of veracity, between myse
and a man who. thinking thus of ar
other fulsomely assures him OF hi
high personal regard