Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1831-01-21
EoR THE VINO.

Under ordinary crcunS' anccs the writer might have
manifested his displeasure perfectly unrcgdfded b ut
the respect wkicb the Auditor owes 10 himself as
public officer. as well tn those whose confidence
lie is proud TO enIny, obhges hin notice the puhl-
cation refcrrcd to, and To expose The errors and mis-
statements (no doubt unintcnona) winch character.
izc 1t throughout. Indeed no other attentive is
allowed TO lIlm. His Report on the Revolutionary
Claims, made IN the call OF tn Ii at Delegates
ana as he thought observing rs mech lecorum to-
wards individuals Us cnnpoIted with Il sense of duty,
has been harshy assacd--hs facts and explanations
represented as tissue Of gross errors, calculated to
,nslead tho Legislature and abuse the public ear and
all this avowcCy by gen lrman who Processes to
hnVc an Intimate knowledge of the sub"ci and deep
interest involved in the resell IL matter o lla
consequence, far the public is concerned, whe
thcr these imputed errors nave proceeded from wIiu
intention or positive ignorance he part OF ITS func-
tonnry If the ,ru'h shall have been With ID ar Oh
Scured,-the evil rs the Not indeed that any
man can DC 30 psesumptunrs = 10 claim an eXcmp
lion from error;-bu, which is ho tirir Of nea-
ligence or inatcn ion TO duty, ouS to be excused
IL Is repeated that n Scrpr.Se-wis fell at IN. pub
l!cauon of thc agent aud Attorney" 1t per-
iectly natural that gentlemen whose golden dreams
were likely TO be dispelled, should in,fc,t some
sensibiEty on the OCCASION The Auditors Report
was intended for the public good,-to guard the into
rests OF the Revolutionary Veteran and his descend
ants, rs well az the Treasury and by no III cans
designed to favor those who expected realise spen.
did profits by the success of those claims. In further
ancc of these vicws he thought it his dsty rerre-
sent things as they really seemed him, unbiased
by fear, favor or affection That h, may have erred
either in his facts or rcasonngs is highly probable
but that the Agent and Attorney" has made any
such discovery, he has yet to learn.
The very first error which the Agent and Attnr-
ney" charges in the Auditors statement is in fact no
error at ALL The Roll of Officers deposited by Major
Duvai IN the winter of 1867 is not coDy, but is
the original documen,;-a fact, of which any rea
sonable man may convince himself by inspecting
1t IN the Office of the Clerk of the House of
Delegates IL is list of the stale line compound
cd of the several Regimenta returns, and is UNI
doubtedy the first list of the kind which made.
1t IS IN the handwriting OF Col Muter, who also
made out the list deposited by Judge Cabell-and
bears every mark of an original paper. Ii is true
that there two endorsements on the PAPER which
stated 10 be eopiesbut the erasures and in cr-
lincation the face oft the document Itself excludes
the idea OF that also being copy. II the paper be
genuine, however, Of what Consequence vs. the fact
whether 1t be true copy the original Tine second
error imputed to the Auditor, the Agent and Attor-
ney" says, is very important Thai roll
meaning the one deposited by Major Duval) does
not contain the names Of he officers of he Illinois
Regiment nor of Crocket;'s Regiment nor Of the
Navy So says the Agent and Attorney" but
what is the fact' The roll docs contain the names
of the Illinois Regiment, and it s quite extraordinary
that this gentlema B., who displays such a familiar
acquaintance with revolutionary archives should
be Ignorant of the fact II is true that the roll does
not contaia the officers of Crocketts Regiment, and
II there be authentic list of that Regiment 10
existence, the Auditor has it. Neither does
1t contain list of the Navy ofcers reported ny he
Board of i7S4; bat how will that help the argueent
Of The agent and At orney'" He would fGrsoo,h
magnify the Importance of his services rendered be-
fore the Report of the Navy Board was found and
deposited by Judge CabcIl IN October, 1929, when,
in truth. 1T does not appear that he employed
TO prosecute the claim of Il single Navy officer.
The Auditor has been strangely misunderstood in
that part of his Report i'll which stated that the
names of the officers hong nscertaned by ne roll,
call that was Afterwards required the necessary
proof OF identity" He did not mean TO saw that the
fd1 required no more, but he intended TO convey tho
idea that the laboeS services of the Aaani and
sol ~ lrn ,la
that very often they did not reach ~. asked
with an ali of triumph, who hcr c0Hnp.ce legal proof
of actual service and continuing aupcruumcrGry uni.
April 1898, was not also necessary The answer ls
yes--but by whom has such proof been obtained.
aud where IS it fled a few cases perhaps except
cd the Auditor has such proofs among the
Judgments There are indeed some vague and ran
dom assertions bout ReY1lu IonIry service, bit az
10 the strict and legal proof which 10 spoken Of It Is
yet to come Tho Agent and Attorney" l.. per-
haps. reservins these fruits of his ''eXtraprdmary
diligence. and fortunate concurrence of circumsan-
ces,' for tho Court of Appeals.
But the Agent and Attorney" remarks, that the
Auditor, IN tone Of complaint, has referred to the
ezpn-te evidence and he asks eff the Auditor does
not know that evidence can of right be adduccd
i'll court, which had not previously been submitted TO
hIT?" The Auditor knows II such thing but exact
ly the reverse; and the inconvenience which would
flow from such rule, is obvious enough. Neither
Is il true that all claims against the Commonwealth
presented to the Auditor are nlUays or necessarily
supported by erPIyie evidence. On the contrary
every claim of whatever kind so presented is presu-
med to be supported by legal and competent proof
The "Ageut 81 Attorney" is perhaps not familiar with
that subject. Claims against the Commonwealth are
for the most part examined and certified by n Court
OF Record where the State duly represented by her
Attorney, and where tho Judge receives full proof be-
fore he ccriIiies. The Agent aud Attorney" may
call this record proof erpI,te IT he chooses bu, the
Auditor docs not. But II Is assertc that the Audi
tor has "errod most cgreglousy stating that the
law and not The evidence submitted to The Snpe-
: rior Court" He anly meant to convey such
idea. He may not possess the agent and Attorneys"
fclicltous mode OF expression but his language will
not bear that constructions He did not mean that
the evidence far il went was not submitted To
tbs Court, but he certainly did mean 70 express ms
conviction tina. but for the arrangement respecting
the evidence 30 which he referred in the uery Ian
guage Of me order oC COVri--thc judgments the
greater part of them would not have been rendered
So far then from stating these circumstances IN
tone of complaint, tho statement was considered as