The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1873-03-20
The Conduct of the Law Office a
'.VaciIIaIinE and Umsattsfalc-
tory His Opinions ''Nume-
rOus and contradictory
UnPseasanU Suspicious '---and
..T'aintcd' EsObc~.


Mr.. SPEAKER
am directed by the Special Committee
TO whom was referred the resolution of in
qniry in regard 10 the subsidy -hct ana the
Warrants issued hereunder to tbs Rlpley
Railroad Company. aud the acton OF tue
Attorney General thereon, TO submit here
with the evidence. which is somewhat volu-
minous, and develops conciusiveiy by direct
and circumstantial testimony the following
facts:
lst That Immediately after the meeting
of the Legislature of 1872, an EFFORT was
made to repeal what was known as the
Subsidy Act passed in 1871, that pending
the consideration and DISCUSSION o. It's re-
peal, and at the time the bill was before the
Railroad COMMITTEE for action, Col w. u;
Mann. Vice President of the Mobile and
Northwestern Railroad, went TO the Chair
man of the Railroad Committee OF the House
of Representatives and suggested to hun To
refer the question of the constitutlonality OIL
the Subsidy Act" ana the aoilty OF Ihe
Legislature to repeal the same TO j. ) Nor
riS. Attorney General; that the Chairman
OF said Committee submitted the proprlety
of making such reference TO the committee
during its session and was directed by the
members thereof to make the reference, and
that action on the proposition To repeal be
deferred until the answer was Obtained
That the Attorney General returned an
answer on the 9th or 10th day OF January.
On the 10th day of January W. ID. Mann,
BTeSiuenL
western Railroad, and the same person VINO
had suggested the reference of the question
TO the Attorney General, paid ), >. MOTIFS
the sum of $500 in a draft on JnO. Ill. Garner,
the Treasurer of said Railroad Company,
which draft has been in the possession OF
this committee, and admitted To be the orig
inal by the Attorney General himself The
Attorney General returned the inquiry with
the statement that sin his opinion that
Roads that went TO work in good faith con
IL. al IN SFslf aI
acquired vested rights which the Legislature
could not effect by its repeal" This favor
able opinion given on the day before or the
very day that he received the $500 together
with all the circumstances connected there
with leads to the conclusion tLat Colonel
Mann. Vice President OF the Railroad, eX-
tracted and intended to control and intlu-
ence the Attorney General IN obtaining the
opinion referred to and II the Attorney
General was not influenced and controlled
by the $500 it was one of those remarkable
condolences that is most unfortunate for his
name and reputation. This opinion we will
designate as No. l.
On page - of Judge Morris testimony
before the committee, he says: Il took no
part or interest in the legislation in respect
to the Subsidy Bill on its passage or on the
proposition to repeal it. | did not
during the discussion of the proposition
to repeal or, during that session OF the Leg
stature, make any Investigations of the OBJ
jections urged against the Subsidy Act.''
| attempted 10 such investigation until the
question was submitted t. me by the Audi
tor, upon the application of the Ripley Rail-
road Company in september last, for the is
suance of warrants to that company under
the Subsidy Act"
From this statementof the Attorney Gen
eral, although question of great magnitude
TO the State, he took no interest or part in
it, and made no investigation until the first
demand was about to be made for Subsidy
under this act. Then the Attorney General
went into the Auditors office, and asked
Col. Brown, Deputy Auditor, if he was
going TO issue the warrants to Col. Falkner
in the absence of Auditor Musgrove. Col.
Brown replied in the negative, when the
Attorney General told him that he
thought his head was very level" meaning
thereby that he thought he was right in not
doing SO. He (Morris) told him that he !
thought if he were in his place that he
should not take the responsibility in the abb
sence OF his principal" He told him that |
. he thought there was considerable doubt |
and difficulty about the business, and that |
he expected this the matter would probably |
be referred To him for investigation by Mus /
grove when he should return, and that it /
ought to be thoroughly investigated or |
words TO that effect. This volunteering, to |
all intents and purposes, an opinion TO "A |
public official, although on page - Of his |
he says: "It is not my business
to volunteer my opinion to State officers. i
assume that when they want my opinion
they will ask for it in the manner pointed
out by the statute. When they DO so | al
ways give my opinion. When they do not
| assume that they have satisfactory OPT
Mons OF their own"
Thus the testimony shows most cOnclu-
siveIy that the Attorney General had an
opinion, which we will designate as No. ,,
written out before he gave authority to the
Auditor to issue his warrants. and before
The warrants were issued, of which opinion
| witness, TO whom the Attorney General
read the opinion, says: " He (the Attorney
JeneraD read to me an opinion he had writ
en-, In which he declared that the act was
unconstitutional. | regarded il as clear and
orclble. and congratulated him on the able
arguments by which he was fortified. / re-
Tarded 1t as unanswerable. This was before
he warrants were issued. / told parties
VINO were speaking of an Injunction to pre-
rent the issuance of the warrants, that the ,
opinion of the Attorney General would SUI
)srcede the necessity OF such action" This {
lear testimony is corroborated. in the mat
er of the written opinion. by that of Col.
falkner. This opinion "No.A2," although
commanded the congratulations of Judge
tor SONG unaccountable reason ,
las not been presented to, or brought be-
ore the Committee by the Attorney Cen
raj. Although the witness regarded il 1.-THE |
Unconstitutional opinion") as being un- 6
the Attorney General man
Iged to modify it sufficiently to Justify the {
Auditor in issuing the warrants, notwith- |
Witnesses 1
hat the warrants should not be Issued and :
me witness, Col. Hamilton, that he "was
he only body who could intervene between
he railroads and the people and that he in
ended to do it," Pending the objections of
lie Attorney General 10 the issu 4ace of the ! :
v-srral ., and Notwithstanding he was. in {
lie opinion of witness. fortified by an un- t
nsWerable written opinion showing the [
of the Subsidy Act"
nd notwithstanding his good intentions to 7
intervene and protect the people. aud that I
he Warrants should not be issued, on /
he fourth day Of September he advised the G
Auditor that he would be justified in issuing |
he warrants to the Ripley Railroad Com r
any. On the next day after their issuance, I
:. A. Brougher, Esq, the law pa, tner of the | I
attorney General. received $4,000 Subsidy e
Variant for his efforts in trying to obtain a 7
avorable opinion from his partner, the At 4 T
Orney General, TO allow the warrants to be | s
sued Col. Falkner says that he did not C
mploy Mr.. BrOugher because OF his ability h
$ lawyer, but for the reason that he was i
ne law partner of Attorney General Nor n
s, and that he could have influence with | r
ne Attorney General in procuring the issu- 1
Id citizen of Tippah county. and knew the .
tuatlon and wants OF the county, and he \
elieved that he would do all that he could a
" their belief. :
Thus the testimony demonstrates that 5
10 Attorney General had a written
Dinion, designated as above =. No. | Fl
which. in the Judgment OF I
lie gentleman TO whom he read IL, was O.
and at the time declared to {
many as two or three witnesses that the s
arrauts should NOT be Issued, and to one a,
illness that he would intervene and protect v
e people from harm as against the Rail- Is
ads. Yet, within one days time the At n
rney General p opinion was so changed OF
q m0diqed that he allowed the warranta u
be issued. It ls true the Attorney Gen q