The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-05-12
va, MONDAY MORNING, MAY I2,- 1879

-
4, MONDA M OR MING
-iIclearly asltbiI the scope OF the .authorii
i !. conferff and tie duty imposed upon I'll
: Board hysae Joint resolution Of: Februar
: .s tsfTHE seaAaaE or iPH4uD., 4 7 !,
The Judge then, goes oll 70 examine sh
charge OF fraud, as, follows !. . IL. .,..lt
IL. Now, as TO the matter Of fraad Th
4 charge OF fraud Is thus set 0at ir the e5ill: !:
In. n.enterin2 fiaSo the said contracts witt
!, The Board Of Rublic Works. wiGb full kn0w
rhe General Assembly, in the represe1ta
] ti1us made by them to the Board OF Public
/ Works OF their services rendered ~ attor
/ neys Of this complainant in regard 10 the
1 subject Of her claiui against the canal com.
pany, AND liabilities for sold company, rhd
the resGltrod SAID. services SO represented 70
have been rendered by them, and in pro.
curing from Sbe said Board the alleged set
Elements, md the allowance to them OF the
large amount OF money and claims retained
! by Them, the said attorneys. johnson. Poe
| &:Poe, did not practice good faith towards
this. complainant, b,st that their actinss in
| said particulars were in bad faith and contra
ry toequity and good conscience, and fraud
upon the cQmplainant-to wit, the Com
rnonwealth cf Virginia.
This Charge is very vague and indefinite
ltseems primarily to rest upon the idea
that the, action OF the Board of Public
| w orks in making the contracts with the de-
4 fen ndants-=Tas in NeeEs of authority coz
| ferred By the General Assembly. AS to
4 thot ~ u otraaHv -nraocaS spio
It then proceeds to impitte misrepresenta.
btions of the services rendered.. by the de-
| PENDANTS in regard TO the claims nnd1abili-
fues Of the COMPANY, and the result of those
| services. In this implication there is no
| specification OF time or particulars: an aP-
| ter careful examination and consideration
Bof this whole record can find nothing
upon which, in my opinion, the charge, can
be founded. -
| tits said1bat the Board was deceiYcdby
Representations in 1867 that the canal COM
pany was utterly inSoVent, and that this
misconception appears in the preamble TO
the contractto have been the moving cause
with the Board to make the contract. It
should be observed that this allegation Is
but. u. portion Of the preamble, and sepa-
rated only By semicolon from another
statement ano, Hatu that it was represented
flp IhC bOAiN Wy VIC IL ~ 1uii' W
presume) that II the tolls and revenues Of
the canal could be appropriated to the cre-
ditors the State of Virginia might be at
least partially relieved OF her liability as
guarantor, in which contingency she would
necessarily recover at least part Of her
Gains against the canal company for money
| then due. But il The statement OF insoi-
veucy had stood alone, it was an undoubted
| matter Of fact. The Legislature OF Vir-
ginia had assumed it TO be fact
beyond controversy in 1860 (Acts 1920,
D.. 894), and, seven years. entire interest
upon an Indebtedness OF millions uf
dollars had subsequently, accrued. The
Court of Appeals Of Maryland at its Octo.
ber term, 1866, only few months before
this contract was made, in Brady Us. The
State, 26th Mary'd Rep, 305, as to this very
matter, had spoken thus: .:.- .lt..
"To say nothing OF other claims OF the
State OF Maryland as a creditor presented
| in this bill, here is an item OF clear indebt-
! eduess exceeding So, ,000, 900, for which the
net tolls and revenues have been pledged to
the State by solemn obligation OF the COM
pany, and in pursuance OF one OF the pub
| lie statutes Of tine State. How far the ill.,
formation OF the appellant is correct, or c1n
be relied upon, as TO the S0lUenCy and pros.
USTOuS VI tuC Cdhdi huA
its ability ere long to pay off its debts and
establish its credit upon firm and lasting
| basis, as ayerred in his answer, can be
judged OF IN the face OF this item OF in-
ildebtadness alone, to say nothing OF ten
millions Of Indebtedness besides, with an
annual surplus OF revenue from all sources
in 1865 Of but S37 900, as disclosed by said
reports" -ta:s Pr
n the Board was deceived then as 10 the
solvcncy OF the company, it could plead the
authority OF the General Assembly OF Viz
ginia in 1860, and of the Court Of Appeals
| Of Maryland in 1866, in extenuation OF its
error. -, -, r. ..-.g
| But know Of no better evidence OF in
solrencv than the confessed fact that not one
dollar OF a debt can be made by any remedy
which the law affords In perSOnan1, and that
the only hope of the creditor rests upon tue
remedy IN rem against property specifically
dedicated to. the payment OF his debt. a
| de6t may be perfectly safe IL joint o0llgor
who is. surety is solvent; but if the only
chance OF making the debt is By pursuing
the surety il. is not uncharitatlc nor untrue
in. contemplating proceedings against tue
surety to say thRSthe principal is utterly III
solvent. ,.... .-
/ ...a'- AS TO MISREPRESENTATION.
| Now, as to the charge of misrepresenta-
ton OF the services rendered BY the defend
ants 1t is not. easy to understand how the
Board Of Public Works. could have been de-
ceiyed by any representation Of the defend
ants as 10 the facts in regard TO- their SER
| vices. The very hatn,e' OF, their employ
mept and their duty excluded the possibility
that there could be any mystery or conceal
7 rnent, or room for falsitication,; as to- what
| f.,;l ia Tbair h1sinpsc
! was with public bodies-with public offl-
cia1s uct1ngF in the blaze OF open. day, with
! the public eye: always upon them. with
! public corporations and judicial tribunals
whose records, made up, day by day. pre-
served, always open to public inspection
and examination, q perpetual memorial OF
! NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. The defendants appear
to have reportedt to the. Board from time TO
time what action they had taken. THESE
reports professed to state facts which stand
| OF record IL, the archives OF the Executive
Department OF the. state OF Maryland,
I upon :; the Journals of both branches
Of her General Assembly, her Constitutions!
| Convention Of 1857, her Board OF Pubic
| Works, fupon the, records OF the Chesa'
peake and Ohio Canal Company, and upon
the order-books and files Of tue Circuit
Court OF Baltimore city aud the Court nf
Appeals OF Maryland. There are hled 10
the yoluminous papers OF this cause eonsld.
erable portions OF each OF these records ana
I see no discrepancy between the Facts upon
the records and the facts appearing IN tne
defendants reports to the Board or fupile
Works. :, #.-,., :.
led by the opinions Of their counsel. II
might,be that counsel placed too roseate
h,1a nnnn thn efficiency OF their services ano