Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1858-05-19
n. the yoters of Augusta County. :


myself. Il gave the law at length upon which |
based the two general charges preferred against
Mr.. K. To that card Mr.. Kinney has published
q reply, to which wish now to call the atten-
ton Of the people.
My first charge was that Mr. K. as Clerk of
tile Court had failed to comply with the law.
Mr.. K. admits the truth of this charge; but
seeks to excuse himself upon the ground OF the
impracticability of the law. &c.,
To show the impracticability ne quotes from
the law 80 much only as suits his purpose.
The law simply requires of Mr.. K. to report TO
Court such monies as have been heretofore paid
into Court and remaining andisbursed.
Mr.. K. construes the law, as requiring him 70
report all monies paid into Court before its pass
age. But such is clearly not the case. 1t re-
quires him to report only such as is now actually
in Court.
The only reason which Mr.. K. or his counsel
(whose opinions he has published in the Vindi-
cator) can possibly assign for not reporting such
money, as is actually in Court, is that ne (Mr.
T. cannot know the exact condition of funds,
which are in the hands of special Receivers.
1t is true that Mr.. X. cannot, nor is he re-
quired to know with what fidelity special RE
cevers discharge their trusts. But it is also true
that all money received or disbursed by either
special or general Receiver is by order Of Court.
Now these orders furnish Mr.. K. with all the
information necessary to accomplish what is re-
quired of him by the 1st section of this law.
Before Mr.. T., however, can avail himself of
this excuse, (admitting it to be validD he should
at least have DONE what no one will say was
impractcable, viz: have reported what funds
were undisbursed in his o,on hands as General
Receiver. se@
But it.seems that Doctors differ as TO the prac-
ticability of this 1st section. Mr.. K. has given
the written opinions of three members of the
bar. Now take it the opinion of the Judge
whose duty it is to expound the law, is rather
better authority than the extra Judicial opinion
of Mr.. Kinney's three friends. In an order OF
Court entered at the July special term, 1857,
Judge Thompson holds the following language
Sand it appearing to the Court that the said
Kinney in his character of Clerk has not as yet
reported the statement required by the 1st sec
ton of the before recited act which is prere-
quisite to the order of the Court and action of
the Commissioner under the 18th section, it is
ordered that the said Kinney forthwith proceed
to the execution of that duty"
Thus it will be seen, that not only the law,
but the expounder of the law, requires Mr.. K. to
do what in the opinion of his advisers mo
mortal man can do"
stated in my card of the 9th inst, that Mr..
K. had not complied with the 18th section of this
law which requires him as clerk to keepa Receiv-
er's Book open to the inspection of the public,
Mr.. K. in his reply does not pretend to deny his
disregard of this section.
The second charge which preferred against
Mr.. Kinney was that he had failed to discharge
his duty as General Receiver of money paid into
Court.
The law requires Mr.. K. to make two gene
raj reports each year as Receiver of the Court.
Besides the one for three months for which l
gave him credit, charged that there was not
report in that Office in compliance with the law.
Mr.. K. claims great credit for statement of his
accounts, made to the July term 1867 Give years
after he was required to make his first report
which has never been acted upon, as the law d.
reefs, either by commissioner or the Court,
and which is therefore entitled to no more cred.
it than any private paper in his possession.
In my first card stated that Mr.. KS ac-
counts as General Receiver were referred to
Commissioner Hendren for settlement also
stated that had called on the Commissioners to
know when he would report thereon "And
my information was that as matters then stood,
there was no likelihood of 81 report ecer being
made was informed by the Commissioner
that Mr.. Kinney had never furnished him with
the data upon which he could make report,
&C." Mr.. Kinney does not deny the above
statement, which plainly sets forth his derelic-
ton in duty. He does deny, however, that the
Commissioner frequently made application to
him for the necessary information. Well, sup
pose the Commissioner did not dog him for the
.nfo 20 Ia tho Iqec OnIItV
of neglect of dutyY
1t was Mr.. Kinneys duty to have given the
requisite information, and had bis accounts ex-
amined, certified and approved five years ago.
He seems to apprehend no damage from neg
lect of duty, but great damage from its being
said that he was frequently told Of it by the
Commissioner. When / wrote that card my
impression was from conversation with the
commissioner, that he had called on Mr.. K. fire.
quenty for the desired information. Upon be-
ing informed, however, after my card appeared
in the Spectator, that my impression upon that
point was erroneous, it was Immediately correct
ed in the issue of the Vindicator of the same
week. For had no desire to do Mr.. \. or any
one else even apparent injustice.
I further charged, that Mr.. K. had violated
the 9TH section Of the law, in neglecting to give
annually bond with security as required. he
says: at is true have given but one bond, and
it is in the penalty of $4,000, with undoubted
security, conditional that will faithfully dis
charge the duties of the Office, during the pleas
ure of the Court.
'This bond, in the opinion Of able co unset, to
the extent of its penalty, if need be, will cover
any default of which ! may by possibility be
guilty during my continuance in Office Mr..
Kinney, in this paragraph, seems to hold out the
idea that because he was appointed during the
pleasure of the Court, therefore his bond (al-
though required by law to be given annually
will cover the whole time since its date. lsub.
NIT can the pleasure of the Court alter the law
Tell us, too, Mr.. Kinney, who are the able
counsel of whom you speakG have heard You
give from the stump the name of but one, and
he says that upon examination of the law he is
Of opinion that your bond is good for but the
one year.
Why did you not consult your legal advisers
upon the whole statute, and then square your
official conduct throughout by their written O.
pinions
No, the question is too plain for controversy.
I assert that there is not respectable lawyer in
the Commonwealth who will give any such o.
! pinion as you contend for.
! Mr. Kinney says in his card that he has in his
hands, as Receiver, about $4,000. For no part
of which charge, and as the law plainly shows
is there any security except snch fractional parl
as came into his hands from November, 1862, tc
November, 1868, for which time the one bono
was given.
Thus, fellow citizens, have endeavored brief
ly to notice the prominent points of Mr.. Kin
ney's reply. There are many other things which
7 would like to say, but time and space forbid
In conclusion, reiterste every charge heretofore
sary to argue further. for fe observe how simple
the issue between Us is.
The law under which have arraigued hin