Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1831-01-25
FOR rHE E.AcoLLLRER.

published ia the Whig Of the l7th and tho Enquirer oil
the Is b inst. signed % An Ageut and Attorney" I'm
der ordinary ci 'cum.tancgs the writer might have
manifested III. dspicasure pc fsc,ly unregaded, bu,
the respect which the Auditor owes 10 liDseii as
public officer well 10 those who's confidence he
is proud to enjoy, oblges him TO notice tie pubca;o
referred 10. aud TO expose the and
Zoo doubt upntentionaD which characterize It through
on'. Indeed. other alternative IL alio~sd TO hun
His Report on the Revolutionary Claims, maie on the
call of tue House Of Delegates. mi he bought ob
servr as much decorun towards individuals as com
pO, ed with OF duty. has tesn harshly assss
his facts aud explanations represented a. ti-.se OF
gross erros, calculated 10 msiead the Legislature. asd
abuse the public ear, aud al this ayowed by gen
temsn WHO profes L. have intimate knowledge OF
the suffice, aud deep interest involved iu the rssu
|, ss matter OF ,is consequence, so far - toe pub
lie 10 concerned. whether these Imputed errors have
proceeded from wifuI inteotioD positive Ignorance
the pert OF its funciionary 1.-THE truth SIN III have been
withheld or obscured,--the evil IL the same. No, in
d~ej, that any b. presu,ppuous az to claim
an exemption from error;-but error which Is the
fruit OF negligence iaatenton duty, ought not 10
be excused
lis repeated Ia, 90 surprise was I'll, a. thu publ.
cation Of thu Gag mt and ltorney" l. was peciec,
ly natural that gentIen whose golden deans were
likely TO be dspellsd, should manifest ssnsib-
ty I've occasion. The Auditors R'pot was intend
ed for 'he public good, guard the interests Of the
Revolutionary Veteran and his descendant, well az
the Treasury,--and was by msaus des gnei To "a
ho's who expected TO realise splendid profits by
tho Of th-ss claims. la fur,bsrincs o. these
views, HI thought II his duly represent ibiass IA
they really seen.d to him. unbiased by tear favor
affection. That be may have erred Ell her IN his isc's
reasoning. "a highly probable, but thai she Agent
aud Attorney" has made any sGe1 discovery, ne. has
yet to learn.
The very hrs, error which the Agent and Ator-
ney" charge in The AUDITORS statement u IN fact
error at all. The Roll of Officers deposited hy Maor
Duya in the winter OF ls267 Is no, copy, but 1t i'
the original docVR en';-etact. OF whieh any reas
able may convince himself by inspecting IL in The Of
IRE Of the Clerk OF the House Of Delegates. u Is u
list OF hs state line comp0un Ted of the several .gi
mental reurns, and II undoubtedly the hrIt is OF ths
tfplu lob. ia in hand in nj
Col. hiu,er. who also made the let deposited by
Judge Cstell-au ears every mark Ut original
paper. I,is ru- that there ar. two endorsements on
the paper, which stated 10 be copies the
aud int rueAtions the face IL the doesmea
ITSELF excludes the idea Of that also beiog copy Ii
the paper be genuine no yever, of what consequence
ia the tact whether II be true copy the orginal
The second error imputed 10 the Auditor the AGENT
sna Attorney" says is very impOrtan; one. That
roll (geaning the deposi'ed by Mdjor DdveD does
NOT contain the ma OF the eticers OF the Illinois
Regiment nor OF Crockett Re i'm mt, Of thu Ma
W." 81 says the Ageui aud a torney,' but what
i. the Jdcn The roll does contain tn names OF the
Illinois Regiment, and IL ute extraordinary that
this gentie man, who dipiays such familiar acqlan
lance with our rev luionary archives should be igno
Of the fact IL - hat tue roll does DOT
the rfcer- OF Crocksrt- Regiment, aud If there
be authentic list of ,hst Regiment in exi-tsncs ,se
Auditor has not seen it, y either does IL conain list
of the Navy officers reported By the Board OF 1874; bu,
how will that help the argument OF the " hg-n' and
Attorney" He would fVrsooth magnify the impor-
OF his services rendered before the Report OF the
Navy Board was found and dspos'ed by Judge Ca
BELL, ia os:ober 1929. when. in iruth Il do APP
pear that he employed to Proseeuts The Claim
Of a single Navy officer
The Auditor has been sttaGgsly mi sund arstosd in
that par, OF his RepoI In which it IL stated that the
Of the officers being ascer,aiaed By the ro'l,
" all That afterwards required was the necessary
preof OF ind entity" II did not mean TO say that the
lao required no more, ut hs in,enied TO convey The
idea that the iahors and services Of tbs "Agrnt aud
Attorney" s-dJD extended beyond hat Poin, an that
very Often tbey did not reach il. Ii IL asked,
with az air Of tiiupph whether complete legal proof
OF actual service and continuing suPsrnum rary until
April, 1885, was not also necessary The answer il
yes!-but bV whom has such proof been obtained end
whersis /, 6led' = lew perhaps excepted. ,bs
Auditor has such proofs among the judgments.
There indeed some vague and random ssseTtioni
abou Revolution iry service, bu 10 the strict and
legal proof which is spoken OIL IL is yet to The
" Agent and Attorney" is perhaps. reserVing these
fruits OF his extraordinary diligence, and fortu-
OF cifcumsances," for tAs Court OF
Appeals.
But the Sc cent and Attorney" remsrka, that the
AUDITOR in a tone of complaint, has referred 10 the
er pGTte evidence and be asks " il the Auditor does
not know that evidence of right be adduceh in
court. which had not previously been subUiusd 10
hinp The Auditor knows no such thing, but exact
Iy the reverse; and the Inconvenience which would
hew from such rule, is obvious enough Neither is
true thai all claims ns the Common slih pre-
scented 20 the Auditor ditcGys or necessarily sup
ported by pdrte evidence. On the contrary every
claim Of whatever kind 80 presented ia presumed TO be
supported by legal and competent proof The Agent
and Attorney" IL perhaps not familiar with that sub
jeet. Claims against tn. Common wealth for he
most par, examined snd certified BY Court of Record
where the State is duly represented by her Attorney.
and where the Judge receives fall proof before he
tides "The " gent aud Attorney" may call this
cord proof paTte II he chooses but the Auditor does
not But IL IL asserted that che Auditor has" erred
egregously in stating that the law and not the
evidence submitted to the Superior Court" He
ianIy meant 10 convey such idea. He may not pos
ssss the Agent and Attorney" fe'ici'ous mode Of
expression but hs language will not hear that
| stsucli0n. He did that the evidence far
IL went not submitted 20 tbs Court, but he cer-
tsnly did mean 10 express his conviction u but Tor
the arrangement respecting The ev TO which he
referred in the pery language Of me order Of Court
The judgments, the greater part Of them would not
have been rendered. So far then from stating these
circumstances in tone Of coup ldl the ttiiement y
considered due TO tbs vel known vigilance aud
zeal Of the Attorney General. well to the
and unexcepionable course OF The Court
But ths Auditors petitions IL are highly cx
ceponebls and singular and among them the reference
10 the example Of Congress in granting i've years iul
pay in lieu of half pay for life IL considered unfortunate
beesu,e the acceptance o. eommutation was optional
With the lines of tie StaeS But when was the COM
mutation offered by Congresl In 1888 inimsJltsy at
the close OF the war; when tho option refer e., vac
the choice between Ten years halt pay certain, and the
allowance for sngis year ~ y the ehancsa and
certainte' Of life The iojucsment existed then
Tor accepting commute ion which now exits Tor re-.
ccng H. The caser therefore. not at All analogous
~ IL the principle tight in 1888 u Is asO right in
1881. Besides,--'he commua'ion when copied by a
msoTiiy Of each State hines wa obligatory, upon all ,hs
indiviiuals who composed IT, The Agent and Alter
nsy" IL entirely Incorrect In supposng, that the asw-
ice Of commit ton would give some OF he claimant
three or osr tines much The Court bps adjudeed
10 them. Thefe but two 10 the whole list Of
uds mens, in which tia, allowance would exceed the
halt pa +, and the difference lie very nconsdsrSble