Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-01-21
EOR TIE VINO.

manifested his displeasurc perfectly unregardad but
the respect which the Auditor to himself as u
public officer, as well rs 10 those whose confidence
lie is proud TO ENJOY, obges hiXl notice the publ
cation referred and to expose the errors and mis-
statements (no doubt unntontionaD which character
lze 1t throughout. Indeed, other alternative is
allowed to hun. His Report on the Revnlutpna ~
Claims, made on the call OF I'll, InuGt of Delegates
and as he thought observing much dccorum to-
wards individuals as conlpoited with of duty
las been harshly assuicd,-,is facts and explanations
represented tissue of gross errors, calculated to
Inisead the Legislature, and abuse the public ear and
all this avowcdY by rem leman who Processes 10
have intimate knowledge Of the subject and n deep
interest involved in the result 1t matter OF lit, Il.
consequence so far the public is concerned whe
Their these Imputed have proceeded from wilful
Inention positive Ignorance on the part OF It's fumes
tIonary If the truth shall have been within ed OBJ
-scurcd,-the evil is the Not indeed, that any
man can be so prcsumptuous as To claim an eXcmp
ton from errOr;-but which Is the fruit Of neg
gence natten ION duty, ought not to be excused.
1t is repeated that n surprise was felt Ut the pub
LEGATION of the Agent and Attorney" 1t was per-
fectly natural that gentlemen whose golden dreams
were likely TO be dispelled, should manifest some
scnsibility the occasion. The Auditors Report
was intended for the public gpod-to guard the inte
rests of the Revolutionary Veteran and his descend
ants, rs well US the Treasury,--and was by unmeans
designed to favor those who expected realise splen
dld profits by he success of these claims. In further
of these vie IS, he thought it his ddty to repre
sent things as they really seemed him, unbiased
by fear. favor or affection That he may have&erred
either IN his facts or reasoungs Is highly probable,
out That the Agent and Attorney has made any
such discovery, he has yet to learn.
The very first error which the Agent and Attor-
ney" charges in the Auditors statement, Is in fact no
error at all. The Roll of Officers deposited by Major
Duva in the winter of 1867 is not q copu but is
the original documen,;-a fact, of which any
sonable man may convince himself by inspecting
1T in the oiftre of the Clerk of the House of
Delegates. II is list Of the state line compound
ed of the several Regimenlal returns and is I'M
doubtedly the first list of the kind which was made.
1t is in the handwriting of Col huter, who also
made out the list deposited by Judge Cube--and
bears every marx of IN original paper. 1t is true
that there two endorsements on the paper, which
are stated be copies-but the eraslres and in er-
neatons on the face of the document ITSELF excludes
the idea OF that also being copy. II the paper be
genuine however, of what consequence the fact
whether IL be true copy the original The second
error imputed to the Auditor. the Agent and Attor
ney" says, is very important THAT roll
(ineaning the deposited by Major Duvan does
not contain the of the officers of IN Illinois
Regiment, nor of Crockett's Regiment, nor Of the
Navy. So says the Agent and Attorney but
what is the faci2 The roll does contain the names
of the Illinois Regiment and it is quite extraordinary
that this gentleman, who displays such a familiar
acquaintance with our revolutionary archives, should
be ignorant of the fact 1t is that the roll does
not contain the officers of Crockett's Regiment and
It there be an authentic list of that Regiment in
existence, the Auditor has not it. Neither does
IT contain list OF the Navy officers reported by the
board OF 1884 bHt how will that help the argument
OF the agent and Attorney" He would fcrsooth
magnify the Importance of his rendered be-
deposited by Judge Cabell, in October, 1929 when,
III truth, it does appear that he employed
TO prosecute the claim of sing lie Navy officer.
The Auditor has been strangely misunderstood in
that part of his Report in which is stated that the
names Of the officers being ascertained by the ROLL
call that was afterwards required the necessary
proof Of IDENTIFY lie did mean to say that the
ia,o required no more, but he intended convey the
idea that the labors services Of the Agen: and
Attorney" seldom extended beyond that point, and
that very often they did not reach H. Ii is asked
nj al fhaP. -a,a
Of actual service and continuing supcrnumcrary until
April, 1888, not also necessary? The answer is
yes!-bnt by whom has such proof been obtained
and where IS 1T filed? 4 few perhaps except
ed, the Auditor has seen such proofs among the
judgments There indeed some vague and ran
dom assertions about Revou ionlry service, but as
10 the strict and legal proof which spoken Of it Is
yet to The Agent and Attorney is per
haps reservins these fruits of his 'e5traordnary
diligence, and fortunate concurrence of crcumstan-
Ces," for the Court of Appeals.
But the agent and Attorney" remarks, that the
Auditor, IN tone Of complaint. has referred to the
eEparte evidence, and he asks '.if the Auditor does
not know that no evidence can of right be adduccd
N court, which hadSpt previously been submitted
hlul?" The Auditor knows II such thing, but exact
ly the reversei and the inconvenience which would
flow from such rule, Is obvious enough. Neither
is II true that all claims ageins, the Commonwealth
presented to the Auditor ol,0ayS necessarily
supported by erPrrte evidence. On the contrary
every claim of whatever kind presented, Is presn-
med to be supported by legal and Competen, proof.
TINT subject Claims against the Commonwealth arc
for the most part examined and certified by CourC
Of Record where the State is duly represented by
Attorney, and where the Judge receives full proof be-
fore he certies. The Agent and Attorney" may
call this record proof erparIe If he chooses but the
Auditor does not But it asserted that the Audi
tor has ''erred mpst egregiously stating hat the
law and not the evidence submitted TO ne Supe-
rior Court" He certainly meant to convey such
idea He may not possess he ''Auent and Attorneys
fecitous mode OF expression. bat his language will
not bear that construction. He did not that
the evidence as far as il not submitted TO
the Court, but M certainly did mean to express his
conviction that but for the arrangement respecting
the evidence to which he referred in the very Ian
5uage Of the order IF Court-;he judgments The
greater part Of them would not have been rendered.
So far then from stating these circumstances in a
tone of complaint, the statement considered rs
due TO the well known vigilance and zeal Of the At
torDey General, we'll 10 the correct and ur x
ccplionabiG course of the Court
But the Auditors positions it seems are highly e%-
cePtiCnable and singular and among them the refer
c1cc the Cx1mDle of CDuurres IN rranfinr five