The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-02-12

had opposed the passage oil q similar ACT last
session. and for other reasons or q PERSONA
nature, be had taken thes trouble to INFORM
himself Of the action taken by Counsel In |
THE prosecution Of this suit, and from tbag |
informatioa he was constrained 10 thlnk
Tint ,1roper diligence and energy had pot
-beerf iisrlayed by the attorneys. he read
statement made BY the clerk OF the court,
certifying the proceedings In the suit up 70
date. He showed that subpRnas were issued
neainst johnson on December 9, 1871 an
order OF publication issued against roe,
January 2, 1878, and bill 6led at April rules,
1878; and that since then no step had been
taken By the attorneys in the SUIT. mat the
defendants had prepared their defence, ana
had been insisting that the cause be heard
for long time. He contended that tue ln-
terest OF the State and justice and fair
dealing suggested that this matter
| should be tried. He therefore proposed
| to postpone until the lat OF March, in the
| hone that the cause would In the mean time
be heard and determined. He would then
| be willing TO vote to give these gentlemen
the compensation demanded. They had
already received $3.50 each, and this Dill
lproposed to give them $3.50 more. The Zee
was liberal; but he would give 1t to them
| when they performed the work that iney
had undertaken, not bGi,re. de thouSntlt
beneath the dignity of a great State to- allow
her agents to be carrying on any dilatory
proceedings against any one, and 1ustlce
demanded that the defendants, VINO are
clamorlpg for trial, should have it Wlthoug
unnecessary delay. He would say notnIns
about The merits OF the controversy. Let
the tribunal to which we nave carTieu Tue
matter decide that. He could not conscien-
tiouslv vote away the people1s money 10
those who had not yet earned it.
Nessrs. -M0FFEFT> and BARBOUR argued
that the bill YVES moderate one that al
nossible haste had been made; that the
cause il now ready for hearing, and that il
the State wants the services OF counsel they
should pay them. Itappeared that each had
already received $3.50, and that what was to
be paid the Attorney-Gener was for work
done before he went into that office.
Mr.. FOWLER supported the bill.
Mr.. PoPHAM moved to strike out the con-
tingent fee-the contingent fee being the
cause of the alleged trouble in the Johnson
| Poe case.
Mr.. STARKE moved to lay on the table.
Lost.
Messrs. w. B. TAL1AFERRo of Gloucester
and j. D. JOHNSTON discussed the bill.
Mr.. HENRY did not mean to say any,
thing as to the merits OF the pending suit
in which these attorneys were employed.
He simply desired to say q word in justice
| to the distinguished lawyers whose compen-
sation was provided for in this bill. 1t
has been stated that they have neglected
| their duties as counsel, and have failed
to prosecute the suit as vigorously as
they should have done, and an ey-
tract from the proceedings has been
read to sustain the charge. That paper
is properly entitled an extract. II is
known through the public prints that the
demurrer OF the defendants has been argued,
and the decision OF the court has been
against the defendants upon the questions
raised by the demurrer. This extract states
nothing OF this. 1t was but right that the
attorneys. for the State should not go into
| their proofs till the demurrer was disposed
| OF, as that raised the question OF the right
OF the State to sue. The defendants seem
| to have taken some dispositions. He knew
nothing Of the conduct Of the case except
| what has been made public, BUTT may we'll be
| that the attorneys for the State are waiting
for the defendants to close their testimony
before taking testimony in reply. 1t ap-
pears that the suit was instituted about a
year ago, and it seems to be q matter OF
complaint that no final decree has been OBJ
taiued. Every one familiar with chancery
proceedings in this State knows that i suit OF
this importance could not we'll be concluded
within the time which has elapsed Much
OF the testimony, it is understood, must be
taken in another State, and the attorneys
themselves live considerably apart. 1t is
only lately that the demurrer has been dis
posed OF, and it Is too much to ask OF this
body to decide without evidence that great
err progress should have been made in the
case. He hoped that the proposition OF the
gentleman from Rappabannock would not
prevail. That gentleman proposed to give
these attorneys no contingent compensa-
ton. Their certain fee in the suit was
small-only $3.50 apiece. They might have |
to follow the case into appellate. courts,
and to institute suits in Maryland and
in Virginia 10 collect any judgments
which may be obtained here. They only
get small fee certain in the case, when we
remember the trouble and expense they
must undergo. The contingent fee being
dependent on the amount collected, will be |
in proportion to the benefit secured to the |
State. These gentlemen have been en-
ployed, we are told, by the State. They |
should be paid fair compensation for any !
services they may perform under their en-
ployment.
Mr.. PoPHAM withdrew his motion.
Mr.. CoGHILL moved to strike out $500 |
and insert $3.50. Agreed to.
Mr.. GRAVES moved to strike out ten per
cent. and insert five per cent.
Dir. GREEN spoke against the amendment.
So did Mr.. HENRY.
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. ASHTON moved to amend so rs to pay |
the $3.50 "aiter the suit is decided" Re- |
iected.
The bill was ordered to ergrossment.
Motion to reconsider rejected.
BLACKsBURG COLLEGE.
Mr.. FOWLER moved to suspend the rules |
to take up the Blacksburg College bill this |
morning reported from the Committee ON |
Schools and Colleges. Agreed to. .
Mr.. FOWLER moved to dismiss the bill. |
Agreed to. m,....,.r
Motion to reconsider rejected. |
This leaves the law unchanged, and the |
Governor is now expected to appoint three |
new members of the Board in place OF those |
whose term expired on January 1st.1l% /
.,ft.@3 ,5.,t- RELIEF. ...>.
The House bill for the relief of Richard |
Crenshaw and G. Pate, Of Bedford county, !
was passed.
SENATE BILLS PASSED.
To amend and reenact the 6Sth section of |
an act for the assessment OF taxes on per- |