Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1871-01-03
Stanton vs.. Faulkner.

From the following card which appeared ID
the Berkeley onion Of fOrtnightago, Il will
be seen that the recent high-handed action Of
the Board of Supervisors Of Jefferson and
Berkeley counties has not met with the cons
currence of the Hon. B. Stanton, one Of the
original counsel on the part Of West Virginia
in the suit of Virginia for Jurisdiction over
the above named cOunties:-
MR. EDlTOR :-On my return from Wash.
iDgtOn City on Saturday last. after an absence
of some ten days. found tWU Numbers OF the
Berkeley Union aud neOf the Nsuc Era, con.
tanning several articles in relation 10 the en-.
ploymeUt Of Mr.. Faulkner rs counsel for West
Virginia. in the case OF Virginia rs. West
Virginia. in relation the the stdiu, of the
counties Of Berkeley aud Jefferson.
With this controversy / have no concern.
except with the assumI ton that it had become
necessary for other counsel TO be emplOyed.
because the counsel who were originally em.
Ployed. and had been paid for their services.
had neglected and abandoned the case. So
far rs l am concerned. this imputation is
wholly false and grOnndless. When the
Court announced in 1868, that the Judges
were equally divided in opinion on the de.
mnrrer. I believe il was understood on all
hands. that il was not advisable 10 make any
further movement in the case until there was
full Bench, or some change in the members
OF the Court. Judge Grier, who was known
to be in favor Of West Virginia. afterwards
retired. leaving but seven Judges Judges
Bradley and Green were appointed in the
place of Judges Grier and Wayne In the
meantime. Judge Ohase's health failed. so that
he has not been upon the Bench for some
In g
counsel for West Virginia did not think IL
prudent to press for 4 rehearibg of the case.
as Judge Chase was in favor of West Virs
ginia. snpposing the condition of the Bench
was such rs to afford them some prospect of
success, moved the Court for a re.argument
OF the case some time in May last. Upon
this motion the Court ordered a re-argumeut
on the first Tuesday Of this month. On NV
return from the Circuit Court of Jefferson
county. on the 9th Of NOvember. I imme-
diateiy devoted myself to preparation for the
argument Of the cause. Having applied N.Y.
self industriOnsly for upwards of week in the
preparation. about tho LIST Df December re.
ceiVcd n note from the Click of the Supreme
Court. informing me that the case was post,
pOned until the LIST Tuesday in February
THIS pnstponement was made by the Court,
IN the hope that by that time the Chief Ju,.
the Bench. | expect TO be fully prepared TO
nrgue the cause at that time, and EXPECT to
argue it. unless the Governor, or other propcr
authorities of the State shall advise me tina,
my services are not desired. Judge Lee writes
me that his health is so precarious that he fears
he will not be able TO argue it, What Mr..
Rererdy Johnson's purpose is, / do not know.
Ilavin" been connected with the CONTROVERSY
from the time it originated, in 1868. feel a
deep interest in it, and desire to see it out.
IT It Is believed by the State authorities
that Mr.. Faulkner can render more valuable
service in the cause, am willing TO retire a,
any moment though confess. should do so
with reluctance. ! have no doubt Of the nj.
tima'c success Of West Virginia in the con.
tr"rrrsy. and feel anxious to have whatever of
prestige may be acquired by successful de-
fence of her claims b. Sr.STuS
Wheeling, Doc 10. 1870.