Staunton vindicator and general advertiser. (Staunton, Augusta County, Va.) 1858-1860, 1858-05-22
TO the Voters of Augusta County.

n. G. Kinney and myself. gave the law
at length upon which based the two gem
eral charges preferred against Mr.. Il. To
that card Dir. Kinney has published re-
ply, to which wish now to call the attea-
ton Of the people.
My first charge was that 31r. r. as Clerk
of the 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
I0 show the impraeticability he quotes
from the law so much only as snits his pnr
pose.
The law simply requires of Mr.. K. to
report to Court such monies as have been
heretofore paid into Court and remaining
undssbursed.
Mr.. K. construes the law, as requiring
him to report all monies paid into Court be-
fore its passage But such is clearly not
the case. It requires him to report only
such as is now actually in Court.
The only reason which Mr.. &. or his
counsel lwhose opinions he has published
in the Vindieator) can possibly assign for
not reporting such money. as is actually in
Court, is that he (Mr. K.) cannot know
the exact condition Of funds, which arc il
the hands Of special Receivers.
1t is true that Mr. X. cannot, nor is he
required to know with what fidelity special
Receivers discharge their trusts. But it is
also true that all money received Or disburs-
ed by either a special Or general Receiver
is by order of Court. Now these orders furn
ISL Mr.. K. with all the information neces-
sary to accomplish what is required Of him
by the 1st section this law.
| Before Dir. K, however, can avail him
self Of this excuse, l.admtting it to be valid,
he should at least have done, what no one
will say was impracticable, viz have re-
ported what funds were undisbursed in his
oun hands as General Receiver.
| But it seems that Doctors differ as to the
practicability Of this lst section. Mr. K.
has given the written opinions Of three
members Of the bar. Now I take it the
opinion Of the Judge whose duty it Is to ex-
pound the law. is rather better authority
than the extra judicial opinion Of Mr. Ken
ney's three friends. II an order Of Court
entered at the July special term, 1857,
Judge Thompson holds the following Ian
guage And it appearing to the Court
that the said Kinney in his character Of
Clerk has not as yet reported the staten ent
required BY the 1st section Of the before re-
cited act which is a prerequisite to tic 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.. <. to do what in the opinion ii his
advisers mo mortal man can DO
! stated III my card Of tic 5.h inst, Hal
Mr.. x. had uos eon.pliod ~iah the 18th
section of this law which req res him as
clerk to keep a Receivers Book open to
tie inspection Of the public, Mr. X. ia his
reply does not nrctend to deny his Disregard
Of the section
The sels5iid charge Which | preferred
against Mr. Kinney was that lie had failed
70 discharge lis duty a. General Receiver
, of money paid into i}'pust.
The law requires Mr.. X. to make two
general reports each year a. Receiver Of the
Court. Besides She cue ut ,1.res mout}s
for wfl}Fh gave hiin credit, charged that
there asls not report ID that nf1e4 IL com
pllanco with the law ,Ir. II. claims CREST
| credit TOT statement of his accounts, made
to The July tern. 1857 five years after he
was required TO make his irs4 report} which
has never been acted upon, as the lay d.
reefs esther by commissioner, or Tic
.ftn md ,xh Is
mere credit tkan any private paper in his
possession.
In my first card | stated that NJ. Ks
accounts as General Receiver we're referred
! to Commissioner I|endreD for settlement.
[ also stated that had called on the Con-
missioner to know. when he woufd report
thereon. And my information was that as
SKATERS then stood, there was no likelihood
! Of report suer being made | was inform
1 ed by the Commissioner that Mr. Kinney
had neser furnished him with the data 10
on which he could naske report, &C." ass.
Kinney does not deny the above statement,
which plainly sets forth his derrliction in
duty He does deny, however, that the
| Commissioner frequently made application
to him for the necessary information Well,
suppose the Commissioner did not dog him
for the necessary information, is lie any 4he
less. guilty Of neglect Of Duty
It was Mr., Kinney's duty to nave oiyea
the requisite information, and Lad his &C.
counts examined. certified aud approved
FIVE years ago.-lfe seems to apprchend nc
eaSnuge from neglect Of duty, but great
damage from its being said that hc vas re
quently told of it BY the Commissioner.
When | wrote that S.r,' my imsyossaon i
from conversation with tie commissioner,
that he had eaHea On Nr. K. frequently r
the desired information. Upon being in
formed, however, after my card appeared in
the Spectator, that ny impression upon that
point was erroneous, it was Immediately
corrected IN the issue Of the 1rindicator of
the same week. Fer | had no desire to do
Mr.. Is. CT any oae else even apparent In
! instiea -.
furthe: charged, Chat sfr K. had VIC
lated the It'll section Of the law, in neglect
ing to give annually bond with security
as required He says: 1T is true I have
given but one bond, and it is in the penalty
OF $2o COO, with undoubted security, con-
dltlonal that | will faithfully discharge the
duties Of the office, during tie pleasure Of
the Court.
This bond, in the opinion Of able coun-
SCI, 10 the extent Of its penalty, if need be,
VIII cover any default Of which I may BY
uOSSlbltltv IN, ors,;l4 - =