The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1875-06-17

such reflection upon the integrity ana charac-
ter of q people, whose sense of honor is above
reproach. and who. in all the relations OF life,
have scrupuously upheld the highest type of
individual integrity. We forbear, however,
selves on the presumption Of the truth of this
rumor, until future developments shall unfold
the facts.
We present this connected statement OF the
facts in the history Of the Valley Railroad, that
our readers may have an intelligent understand
ingof the matter as it now stands.
1t requires no great stretch of the mind to
discern that the syndicate, composed of gentle
men of great public enterprise and liberality,
are the real sufferers by reason Of the compile
cations. With over six hundred thousand dol
lars invested in material and work, they are not
able to procure from the company one cent of
the indebtedness due them, and are conse-
quently unable to meet the obligations they
have incurred i'll preparing for and prosecuting
the enterprise in which the honor and good
faith Of the company are so deeply involved
They had exhausted every method that the in
genlity Of man could suggest to adjust their re-
latioEs to the company without a resort to the
courts. All having failed, they were left no
other alternative but to institute suit, aud it
will be the grossest injustice if any technical
Instructions are thrown in the way OF a speedy
trial and determination of all the matters con-
nected with the contract.
Tho SLonnu HonL De7noc7.0t of the 10Th in ct
contains, in it's editorial columns, very un-
just and unprovoked attack upon John Paris,
ESQ.,. Clerk of the Supreme Court Of Appeals
of Virginia, at Staunton. We can conceive OF
no defensible ground upon which such criti-
cism could be directed against Mr.. Paris, and
we are sure the editor has entirely misappre-
hended the facts, otherwise he could not have
allowed himself to have assaulted one Of the
most scrupulously faithful officers in the State,
as he has done.
| 1t seems that the Democrat has taken excep-
| ton to the wording OF the advertisement ill.,
serted by Mr.. Paris in one of the Staunton pa
pcrs, inviting proposals for printing the records
OF the Supreme Court, at Staunton. The ad.
vertiseinent says g as the printing has to be
done auader the supervision and direction OF
| the Clerk, 1t must be done IN Stauaaton.''-
| This Is the precise langua used iii the advcr-
| tiscment by the Clerk of the Supreme Court at
! Wythyille and also at Richmond. The law re-
quires that the 6 Clerks shall award the con-
tracts for said printing to the lowest response
BILE bidder in their respective localities, &C.
| Last year the advertisement omitted the ex-
preston that the printing must be 'sdone in
Staun!on," and consequently a bid was re-
ceived from another locality, in addition to the
bids from the printers i'll Staunton. When the
conditions were made known to the bidder
| from Il distance, and the requirements which
the law imposed upon the Clerk were clearly
stated, the bid was withdrawn, and the con-
| tract awarded to one of the city offices.
| Although Mr.. Paris mind was very clear on
| the subject that the printing must be done I'M
der his immediate supervision, and where he
could at all times have access to the printer
and the records, he submitted the question to
Judge Moncure, who agreed thoroughly with
him, as did Judges Boulding and Anderson
with whom he consulted, that while bid
from distance could be accepted, yet the
printing mast be tdone in Staunton.' where
the proofs had to be read and compared with
the original record, by the printer and the
clerk. In his reply to Mr.. Paris letter, Judge
Moncure enclosed a copy of the advertisement
printed by authority of the clerk at Wytnville
in which it was required that the printing
must be 'sdone in Wythville, . and which
|
construed the law to suit himself, OF to favor
the printers in Staunton. T. is matter of in
difference to him who prints the record, sc
that it is done in such manner as the law re-
quires him to have them printed. The Judges
Of the Court Of Appeals have given the same
version OF it that Mr.. Paris maintains, and we
think our contemporary is greatly at fault il
making the llngenerous criticism he did.
| Certainly, it is a matter Of no interest to the
Staunton printers. There is no profit in the
contract, under the present requirements o.
the Court, and we are sure it would prove {
to undertake the work. and meet the requi re-
ments of the law, as construed by the CLERK
and the Court, and the rules governing the
Clerk prescribed by the Court.
4 In the terms of the advertisement and in
awarding the contract, Mr.. Paris has strictly
complied with the law, and given as much lat
itude in the proposals for bids, as was consis
tent with his official duties and obligations
He is fortified in every thing he has done by
| the reason and the law of the case, and we
| cannot imagine what object the Editor OF the
Democrat could have had in view, in writing
the article to which we have alluded. We
think upon mature reflection, Capt. Riddlebar-
ger will conclude that he has done Mr.. Paris
| injustice, and from our estimate of his charac-
ter, we are sure, in that event, he will prompt
| ly acknowledge it.
| The Conservative papers Of Virginia seem to
be exceedingly iubiant over the May elections
in the State for County officers, and claim the
result as evidence that the party is strengthen
ing.
| They are welcome to all the comforts they
can squeeze out of this. The fact is, the Re-
publicans cared very little about the insignifi-
| cant positions in question. They did not care
to raise the question Of politics in these minis
terial offices, and thus give the mischief-makers
in the State all opportunity to stigniatize them
as enemies of their section and State, and as
''nigger worshippers.' There was not enough