Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1860-05-01
sTAUNTON, VIRGINIA, TUESDAY, MAY l. 1860.
F0T lhe spectator.
Judge Thompson and the Receiver.

For the Spectator.
Judge Thompson and the Receiver.
Messrs. Editors The decent ~" has brought
forth again, and oh the abortionl He comes
forth again, in all the ''glaring impotence" o1
his bullying propensites. He says | now con-
tess and justify | deny this. What l have
written at first shall hold up to at last Ihave
been ''driven to the wall' in no case. have
given my arguments and he has given his; and
| shall leave the people to decide. am willing
that the sensible voters shall be judges OF what
have written. | do not place such high opin-
ion upon my articles as he does upon his own ;
and feel confident that the honest readers OF
each do not read and construe as ~" does-do
not select part of sentence to subserve their
purpose aud pass over the remainder-are not SO
mean and SO sinister as to shape and join the
assertions OF an opponent SO as to make him
mean what he does not.
He is the man who eon1ssses and justJfes He
says that what asserted was untrue, and at the
same time confssses that Mr.. Kinney gave his
bonds, in the very manner named in my article !;
but pretends to justify by making those bonds
what they never can be. He contesses that Mr..
Kinney was for 81 years Receiver of the Court
without any bond as Receiver; but holds that
as Receiver. What man, without prejudice and
sinister designs, believes thisa Who believes
that bond for one office is good for another 2
Who believes that bond given for one debt,
will make the securities upon that bond liable
for any other debt by the same man2 or upon
one contract liable for another contracts Sup
pose tor moment, that certain person would
give bond for the faithful discharge of his duties
as Sheriff, and was at the same time made Con-
stable, without bond, would any honest man
pretend that his securities as Sheriff were liable
for his acts as Constable? Suppose again, an
individual gave his bond as Constable and, as it
frequently happens he should be employed as
agent for the private collection of monies, aside
from his Office as Constable, would any one
presume his securities liable for this money p
What then is the difference between these cases
and the one under discussions Mr.. Kinney was
appointed Clerk and gave bond as such. He
was also appointed Receiver, but gave no bond
as Receiver. These are separate offices, requlr-
ing OF course separate securities. As Clerk, he
attended to the business of Clerk and as Receiver
he received the monies Of the Court. Who then
would palm upon his securities this double liza
bity? Who would say that they are response
BILE for acts, for the performance OF which they
never vouched? No one but this self constitu-
ted judge "" and his CO ordinate dictators.-
The securities of Mr.. Kinney undoubtedly be-
came such only for his acts as Clerk, and to
make them liable for his acts as another officer,
would not only be inconsistent with justice, but
in violation of law. Aud furthermore, if Mr..
Kinney gave bond in penalty OF only $4,000 as
Clerk (and Receiver, as II" would have IT'D in
1881, why was be required to give bond in
double penalty, upon the passage OF the Act OF
1922 Merely because, by that Act, the Judge
IoI hnn for
the separate Office OF r. sceiver, which office had
all along been unsecured, from the negligence
and faithlessness of him, who should have Sc
cured it by demanding bond from him who
filed it. And again, why did the necessity"
arise in 1862 'fOr general ReceverT Be-
cause it became evident to those who originated
it, that, in no other way, could the Court be
made to require security for this responsible Of
lice. Security had been neglected to be re
quired and the only remedy of the Legislature
was this cOercive remedy. 1t is said, that this
Act, though applying generally over the State,
was at the time intended to have special ap-
plication to this locality and that it was drawn
up in Staunton, by one of our own delegates, and
reviewed and revised by his friends. And it is
even said, that there is not another instance up
on record, in which the Receiver was not re-
qulred to give bond by his Court. What does
all this meaH2 Somethang.
We now come to the Act itself. The glorious
~" acknowledges that there was only one bond
taken, and that in 1852; but says that bond is
good eternally. OF course if it is valid-it must
be valid under the Act, for it was given under
it, But the 7th section of that Act reads thus {:
He Qhe ReceveD shall annually give before
the Court bond, to be approved of by it, in
such penalty as the Court may direct, sufficient
at least to cover the probable amount that may
come into his hands IN any one gear" Can any
honest man fail in constituting this2 Was ever
anything SO plain9 1t shall be given annual
H." saith the law, as plainly as it can be said
public interest" for the public interest always
demands it. The Court does not know when
money may be paid into it, and should be ready
for the emergency and not wait until there were
liabilities before securities were required, which
would make the trouble endless. Judge ''Z' as
serts that 'John B. Baldwin and others have
brought suits upon this bond" and are confident
of recovering. | suppose the defendants and
their counsel are likewise confident that they
will not recover, or why will they stand them a
trial. They have the Act at least to back them.
This is all shall say upon this subject and am
willing that any competent, impartial and re-
sponsible Judge shall, upon oath, deliver his
opinion upon it. am willing that any sound
lawyer, (JU0yS II uOI oACoptSu,J ulVtSteu VI
his impartialities and prejudices, and purged of
any dishonest motives, shall give the people,
upon oath, his construction of this Act.
What then might have been lost to the County,
by this negligence of 'Jaith ul public servant"
if the Receiver had failed to meet all of the de
mands instead of some onlya If $4,000 was
considered only sufficient to cover the proba-
BILE amount in any one year," in the four years,
he was without bond, it came to the round
sum OF $4,000. How do the people like to have
so much of their money pass through any mans
hands, no matter how honest and responsible,
without some guarantee2
The very truthful ~" says l am ISLANDER
ous." As to Judge T., my answer is, truth is
no slander. As to Mr.. Kinney | can have no
motive in attacking his memory. 1t was the
province of the Court to demand bond and not
in Mr.. Klnney's place to give it without request.
He could become insolyent and irresponsible
without any dishonorable designs, for the un
certainty of human affairs applied to him as well
as to any one else. 1t was Judge Thompson's
place to prepare for this uncertainty, and upon
him should fall the blame. The damnang ""
asks too, what get for writing9" don't ex-
pect to get anything except the hatred OF few
snobbish sycophants.
The rule you have adopted, Messrs. Editors,
and other circumstances, require that l should
send in my articles on Monday or Tuesday a