Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1851-04-02

pose OF qualifying him to fill an Office in simi-
lar institution in a neighboring state" The COM
mittce say, they have reason to believe that the
appointment was good one, the evidence being
abundant that he possessed In an eminent degree
those qualities that fit him for the station. They
then add, "The only question that arises is, was
it proper to appoint one, who only intended to re-
main in the institution SO short time, Zone year
Should not the state have the benefit of the expe.
rience gained in the employment, or should she
contribute to the qualification of one who might
be employed to take charge Of similar institution
in sister Southern state Your committee, with
out entering into the argument, will not under
take to condemn the appointment, though it may
have been made paftlt with the view of favoring
the laudable aspirations Of the appointee."
The board cannot understand how the commit.
tee suffered itself to be puzzled with such ques-
tons, or how, upon their own showing, they
could withhold their unqualified approval from
the appointment An election is to be made to fill
an office for one year The board cannot give
pledge to re-appoint and of course can ask no
pledge of the appointee 10 serve longer. A cam
didate presents himself, who in the language Of
the comittee, sis in an eminent degree possessed
of those qualities that fit him for the station" He
is appointed and serves out his time At the end
of the year the committee investigate. The evil
dencc of his qualification is entirely satisfactory
that of his diligence and devotion to the duties Of
his office most remarkable. His bitter enemies;
we might almost say his prosecutors, are called to
witness against him; truth compels them to de-
clare they have never heard rumor of any Short
coming. Yet "a question arises" say the COM
mittee-and what question: Why, in substance
this: Was it proper to appoint him, since ne could
not pledge himself to remain longer than his office
or his contract required or allowed
The directors believed themselves bound to a.
vail the state Of eminent qualifications, even if il
could only be done for short time. They were
of opinion, that if in doing SO they should incl
dentaAy over and above aid the cause of hunani.
ty in ga sister Southern state, the Legislature of
their own enlightened and generous Virginia
would rather applaud than make it cause OF quar-.
rel. They were, moreover unable to appreciate
the overruling necessity for experience in an az:
sistant physician except in the general science
and practice Of medicine since it was a part of
the plan of this institution for the superintendent
to direct and control everything, and that the as
sistants should not be permitted to frame and carry
out their own plans.
FIFTH CHARGE.
"That the dealings of the institution have been
almost exclusively with the treasurerJ. b. Breck-
inridge."
The notice taken by the committee of this charge
is liable to great msconstruction, if indeed it is not
founded in misapprehcnsion on the part the COM
mittee.
They saw "your committee ascertained the
practice was to make a wholesale. purchase twice
year through their treasurer, ]. B. Breckinrdge,
for which commission of five per cent. on dry
goods, and two and half per cent on groceries,s
allowed 1t was admitted that the dealings for ar
ticles needed between the times of those semi-an.
nual purchases were made with Mr.. Breckinridge."
The committee should heve referred the whole.
sale purchases made semi-annually TO the taw,
which requires this course of dealing, and not to
the pactce. Much censure has been cast on the
court of directors by the community for not doing
the bulk of their dealings with the merchants at
home 4; and it would have gratifed the court, if
the community had been informed through the
committees report, that such dealing was only in
obedience to the law of the land. But the most
serious mistake is committed in stating the admis'
sion made by the court Of directors They did adj
NIT the fact that most Of the intermediate dealings
for goods not laid in semi-annully were with Mr.:
Breckenridge but the committee were distinctly
informed that this was not done by any order
or recommendation of the board that the steward
was the agent for making these purchases, and that
his only instructions were, to deal wherever he
could obtain goods on the best terms The directors
could not consistently with their purpose OF hold
ing the steward responsible, require or advise him
to deal or not to deal with any one yet fro the
report of the committee it stands, the very er-
roneous inference would naturally be drawn, that
these dealings with Mr.. Breckenridge were by or
der Of the board. The directors regret that the
committee did not express an opinion in their re.
port whether or no the interests Of the state had
suffered by their dealings with Mr.. Breckenridge.
In Justice to that faithful officer, the steward, the
court of directors must here express their gratca-
ton that no evidence was introduced on the in
vestigation tending to show that he had ever paid
more for goods than they were worth, while it was
abundantly proven that he always procured them
on the best terms.
EIGHTH cHARGE-THE WATER WORKS.
"That the town of Stainton interest in the joint
water works was purchased by the directors about
two years since at an extravagant price"
The directors were greatly surprised on seeing
the committees report on this charge:
That an error was committed by their engineer
in the original construction of the water works, in
that the pipes procured in pursuance Of his advice
were too small to convey the water of the spring, is
admitted That the directors erred in originally con.
sentng to connection with the town is also admit
ted-not for of perfect protection to the state
in the contractnot that the state has suffered any
detriment from the connection, but solely because
out of that connection heartburnings ana ealousies
sprahg up between the asylum and the town, which
could not have been foreseen, but greatly to
be regretted. Each party; no doubt, cohtended
for what they respectively thought themselves enti-
tied to, but yet there was conention-better always
avoided if possible.
The directors maintain that these were the on.
" evil fruits of the error. They deny that the
connection C. "led to very inudicious location of
the reservoir" off the lands of the institution, and
must have added considerably to the cost. II was
proven before the committee by their own witness
(Mr. Rhodes,) and could have been establshedby
fifty if required that though the water might have