Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1918-03-05
Who Is NJ rs. Lila
NJ eade Valentine:o
Postmaster Writes Congressman
Glass Her Name Is Not in
Directory.

| Postmaster Hay I. Thornton and
| local post Office officials arc arouse,
over the "uncalicd Tor and unjust ad-
verse criticism of Representative
mond post office delivery system
Postmaster Thornton declared ycstcr-
day that in the face OF such criticism
he thought the public was entitled t.
know the facts.
The cause for the entire controversy
WAS brought about when i:cprcScria-
tive Glass Il few days ago sent Il letter
addressed TO Mrs. Lila Meade Valentine
OF Richmond The address carried no
street number, and since the name
could not be found in the city dircC-
Tory il was returned to the sender
This is wha; brought down the ire OF
Representative Glass upon the Rich
mond post office.
When the letter was returned Rep
rcscnta;ivc Glass is reported TO have
said: Mrs. Valentine is one of the
best-known women in Virginia, and it
is remarkable to me that the clerks
OF the Richmond post-oiIicc do not
know where she lives"
Although many OF the employees ana
authorities OF the post office either
know or know OF Mrs. Lila Meade VAL
entinc. who is registered in the city
directory as Mrs. l.. Il. Valentine. il
happened that this clerk tried every
regular means to find the address, and
when he failed he returned the letter
ana resumed his work in handling
many other matters that demanded his
immediate attention.
In reply to Il personal letter received
from Representative Glass. Postmaster
Thornton yesterday sent the following;
letter III reply. which fully explains
the position of the post-olice author
tiles:
My Dear MIR. Glass:
answering your letter OF the Cd
instant. relative to the return 10 you.
Endorsed NO; in the city di Glory OF
a letter addressed by YOU to Mrs. Lila
Meade Valentine. Richmond. Va. please
let mo say that the Endorsement on
this letter and tho treatment of the
same was in accordance with tho
Postal Laws and Regulations. The
trouble experienced in handling this
letter was due 10 the fact that Mrs.
Valentine. as YOU know, does not use
her husbands name. as is customary.
Had the letter been addressed to Mrs.
r. y. Valentine, whom she is, the letter
in question would have been deiiv-
cred promptly, notwithstanding the
fact that ii had no local address or
had the letter as addressed contained
a locat address il would have been
promptly delivered. Fad the letter as
addressed come under the persona! OBJ
servation of the writer ii would have
been promptly delivered. since Mrs.
Valentine has been known to me per-
sorally for many years. Thcrc are no
doubt q number of employees OF this
Office who also know Mrs. Valentine
while there are probably 4 number of
others who do not know that she is
Mrs. Il. Il. Valentine. There is no rule
in tho Office requiring employees
10 know tho local address OF persons
whose names do no: appear in the
city directory. Under the civil service
rules, this Office. like many others. has
20 employ persons living in other sec
lions OF the state. who are not ia
miliar with the personal affairs OF
many patrons of the Office: consequent :
Is tho absence of such knowledge can
not no construed as a cause for in
| hictinw penalties.
( CSiGncd) HAY r. THORNTON.
Post mn str~"