Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-03-21

sort OF vfce-gerent TO the chairman
himself for / find that in one instance
the summons for several witnesses, is
in his hand writing, the name of the
chairman, even, being signed by him.
| These witnesses were summoned be.
fore the committee had marked out Q
course for themselves and were 10 be
paid, by the commonwealth, for their
daily attendance. The economy oil
this arrangement is obvious. They
have since been paid, at one dollar
)per day, each man, while witne sse
who attend on courts, no matter from
what distance, receive only fifty cents
per day for their attendance. Thus
was the treasury Of the commonwealth
of Virginia placed at the mercy and
discretion OF this desperate adventurer
for eight weeks, without restraint
check or coatrol--the rule adopted by
the chairman, and the power of sum
moning given to Henry Banks, being
entirely without limits. Hereafter
you will hear farther on this point.
For the accuracy of the above state
ment, l appeal TO the original docu-
me nts in the Office of the clerk of the
house Of delegates for the accur .cy
OF that, which I will hereafter furnish
on the same subject, shall appeal to
the books of the auditor Of public ac-
counts.
|. The other measure which propo-
sed to notice was the cause Of enquiry
adopted by the committee. This was
dictated by the same Henry Banks, &
was brought before the committee. in
the following ingeniou, manner. MIR.
Otey, a member from the county OF
Bedford, presented to the committee
a paper which, he said, had been han.
ded to him the evening before, by a
Citizen {" he did not know what il
contained, bat being intended for the
comnittee, he thought it his duty to
Iprescnt it," 1t was presented and il
was TO mi 10 contain upwards of forty
different heads on articles ofimpeach
ment against the armory and its az,
fairs the statement being without
name, bat in the han1 writing Of Hen
Try B.aks. 1t is To be here remarked,
that MIR. Otey (who had kept this pa.
lper in his pocket for twelve hours
withoo examining il and handed il in,
at last, without knowing its contents
and consequently without knowing
whether it might not be libel on the
committee itself) had been an active
member of that committee which
made the hostile report of 1907, and
on which the house, as before temark.
ed, declined to act Extensively against
dissatisfaction. The paper, however,
which he now handed in, was rejected,
as being without any signature or os.
tensible father, and SO the committee
were again at sea withoat chart or
compass 10 guide their investigation.
But what was to be done The wit
nesses 70 support those charges had
been, several OF them, srmmoned and
were now attending, atthe expense oil
the CO nmonwealth. The diaicult,
was easily obviated. The committce
| 'dJourncd ;and the next morning IN,
| Hartman reported, that the charge.
which had be n rejected the day before
as anonymous, had now received tn,
| signature OF their author and were a
lgain submitted 10 the committee
| They were signed with the name o
henry Banks, aud were adopted, with
a few trivial exceptions, as proper sub
Iiects for the examination of the com
mittee. Ircgret extremely that tn,
limits which | have prescribed to my
self will not permit me to insert her,
4 copy ofthese charges 4; in order tina
you might see how obviously the reso
:; luton of Daniel Shelley proceeded
from a previous view Of these yer,
charges. There were now about Eft,
witnesses who had been summoned by
Henry Banks orat his instance ant
upwards of forty different heads Of nc
cusation. The course agreed upon b,
the committee was to examine eacl
witness to these charges, head by head
and receive aud note his answer tt
each charge. Thus the topics of in
\ vestigatlon were prescribed by Henri,
| Rnnto eLc 4. al