Clinch Valley news. [volume] (Jeffersonville, Va.) 18??-2019, 1919-10-31
Political Advertisement
CT ockett Replies to
Royals Charges
His Record and the Matter Of
Bod Faith Submitted to
The Voters.
To the Voters of the Third Senatorial Dis
trict of Virginia

To the Voters of the Third Senatorial Dis
trict of Virginia.
II any one thing more than another char
acterlzes the people of this Senatorial Dis
trict, it is their love of fairness and square
deal. So ingrained in them is this feeling
that they spontaneously and unanimously
condemn anything that savors Of an unfair
advantage Therefore, know they are sur
prised when they read today's Clinch Valley
News and read the charges preferred against
me by Mr.. Royal, knowing that this was the
last issue of that paper before the election
and that was thus prevented from answer
ing those charges If Mr.. Royal thought
the charges were true, it would seem that he
would have given me an opportunity to an
swer, so that my inability to do so would
have convicted me before the people. On
Thursday morning had an intimaton that
an attack of some sort would be contained
in this last publication before the election,
and called up the editor for information,
He admitted that he had communication,
or communications, from Mr.. Royal and his
friends for publication / asked permission
to see them in order that might reply In
the same issue of the paper, but he told me
that they were advertising matter and he
was not at liberty to permit me to see them
without the authors consent. However, he
did interview the authors on the subject, but
they refused to give such consent. BY spec
ial arrangement, however, with the Clinch
Valley News, l am able to give you the fol-
lowing specific replies to Mr.. Royals charg-
es:
"Mr. Crockett's Wet Record"
Under this caption Mr.. Royal suggests
that am against prohibition. have sup
ported and voted for every local option and
prohibition measure inaugurated since have
been voter. | have never sought to capt.
talize my convictions on this subject by con-
tinualy seeking to exploit the moral sense Of
the people to my own political advantage. 1t
seems, however, that Mr.. Royal has no such
scruples. He even goes further than that,
for when he recently announced his present
candidacy he used two forms of announce
ment. In his newspaper announcement to
Tazewell County he says he is for prohibl-
ton, (prohibition being the first plank in
his platfor1n), but in his cards which he
presumably took to Dickinson county, pro-
hibitiOn is conspicuous by its absence. Can
it be possible that in his estimation the i'm
portant thing to which to appeal is not the
prohibition sentiment of all the people, but
what he believes to be the sentiment of the
majority in a particular locality? Tazeweii
County having voted "dry" by a large ma
jority and Dickinson County having voted
SWEET" and an appeal to the majority l,eing
the popular thing, naturally he hail dry
plank in Tazewell ard left it out in Dirkcn-
son, and stands with one foot o.. land AMI
the other in the sea- Apparently he thinks
"a little moonshine now and then is good for
the best of men"--if they live in Dickinson
County.
Mr.. Royal fails to explain the facts in
regard to the petition to him and the late
Hon. E. H. Witten, expressing the opinion
that the liquor business. should be permitted
to continue at Pocahohtas until November /,
1916, being the date when statewide prohi-
bition was to become effective by vote of
the people. The question the people voted
for was to stop the sale Of liquor in Virginia
on November /, 1916. No reason was APP
parent why Pocahontas should be made an
exception, and many business reasons were
urged why this should not be done - thu
Towns obligations were based upon the liq-
uor license money up to that time; the banks
had made loans upon that belief, rent con-
tracts in all lines of husineSs were entered