Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1879-05-12
The STATE VS.. Gen. Is. z. Johnson
and others.

lie tho Richmond Circui! Court, Saturday,
Judge Wexford rendered lis decision in Inc
suit Of tho Commonwealth vs.. Gen. bradley
T. johnson, ard Messrs Nelson and Jobu
Poe. Of Baltimore, il tic matter Of tie Chc5
spcako aud Ohio Cansl litigation. TIE Judge
decided against The Statc-gi7ing bis ica5ots
therefor Ell eE.a! ieog.h-lCd then decided that
The sui! gss Improperly brought.
The suit was 10 compel The three defendants
to rcflnd $lG5, 900, with interest Tor six years,
being portion Of Ices received by them IS
ATTORNEYS for the State Of Virginia in protect
Ing The interests OF the State in The Chesapeake
aud Ohio Canal. Judge Wellterd. in dccidiDg
| the case 10 favor Of Tho defendants, held that
the contract and settlement made by tho Beard
| Of Public Works Of tic State With the alter
ueys w4s authorized by law, and that all az
TORS ct thu. board and OF Gen. Johnson AID
his associates Wero legal Gnd proper, and that
all their conduc. OF the business CT the State
had been opep, fair aud public, ari ths pro
ceedicg reported from tltac to lime 10 tie
board, recorded amogg lhelf records md ap-
proved by them.
1t appears that il 1861 tho Board Of Public
Works CT the State of Virginia, under the 81
,horiiy OF 40 cot Of the legislature CT the State,
employed Gen. Bradley +. Johnson CT Viz
Firpini0, and Mes5rs. JOha L. Pee and Neil
son Pee to prosecute and. assert tho cIaims OF
the State OF Virginia on all accounts against the
Chesapeake aod Ohio CGDal Company before
the cou,ls, The board cf directors Of tho com
papy, and Tie legislature Of Maryland. and
also before tho Board CT Public Works oil
Ma.S!aud. The interest Of the State of Viz
GINA 10 the canal company 10 ts bonded debt
as creditor, gusrantor. TO, vas 81 200 600,
and tho contract which tbo Board O! Public
Works mado With tho attorneys WAS to allow
them cou,i1eent fee cf twenty per cent. GU
the amount named above as the interest Ct tho
State as o creditor, &C., 10 tho canal. The
first step taken by the attorneys was early In
lSG7, when they went befora The Legislature
OF Maryland and procured tho passage of an
oct of Assembly transferring the management
of the canal TO the boDdholdcrs. thus taking il
out Of the hands of The politicians into those
who had Invested their mooey 10 the property.
The Board of Public Works Of Maryland,
which was then presided over by Governor
Saann, refused to execute the law and comply
with is requirements, On the ground that
the act Hss unconstitutional, es The Lagl
iituso had 20 authority to transfer public
Improvement Of this character from the
hands Of tho Board OF Public Works into
tha. Of individuals. The attorneys then Went
before the constitutional Convention OF 1861, 10
order to have clause inserted transferring tho
property into tho hands CT bondholders. bu.
they not only failed 10 eecurc this relitf, but
the couvraiion a!so repealed the cct OF 1867,
chapter 90, passed by the legislature ut the
instance 0! the attorneys for Virginia. 1t is
stated that this was the first time 10 the his
tory OF Maryland constitutional convention
that an act Of Assembly was ircptao ty the
organic law Of the State. hessgs. Poo and
johnson then went before the Board CT DiTec-
tors Il the Chesapcak aGd Ohio Canal Co., 10
enforce settlement Of the claims Of Virginia.
because the State failed 10 produce the coupons
srd other evidences of Indebtedness Of The
company towards it. ard which, it was stated,
were destroyed or lost when Richmond was
sacked The board held that the bords aCd
coupors might be held by other persons. and
refused to make The settlement asked. The
attorneys then, on December tho 2lst. 1861,
fled bill 10 the City Circuit to assert the
claims of Virginia in the canal. The ciso was
decided By tho Court Of Appeals, June 1870, in
favor Of Virginia, some CT the points being az
verse snd others 10 favor ofthe State. A fee
array CT Oiunsel Was cugsgtd at tho trial,
nles:r5 Steel and G@inu representing tho pre-
f.rrod bondholders; Brent and Price, the other
boEdhoIdcrE; Marshall and Carer, REPRESENTING
the Board OF Pull, Works; Isaac y. Jo1es
Attorney General, represenline the State. and
Mcs;rs John z. and Nelson pJe and General
Bradley i. Johnson. the State Of Virginia.
This decision settled the prloriirs If the dit.
crcnt grades OF tho bonded debt. The revenues
OF tic company wtro administered. and III
November 1872, The three ctu5sel for VIRGINIA
presented their report TO the Board OF Public
Works OF that State. 10 Jauuary, 1878. the
Board Of Public Works made lioai settlement
with COUNSEL, and adjusted the accounts Of the
attorneys for all the moCey collected hlessrs
Poo aud johnson received payment of their
ic:s, being 20 per cent. ct The interest ct the
State 10 Tho company, an1untipg 10 about
| $40 00O, and executed release oil all claim
against the Board Ct Public Works.
At the meeting Of the legislature of Virginia
10 1874 c1mni!teo was appointed 10 each
House TO investigate the matter Of the CONTRACT
end settlement, hud both comuittecs reported
that the cjnlrsc5 vas fair and proper, sDd With
in The power OF the Board OF Public Works,
ard that it had been executed by counsel with
ability and fidelity, ard that the settlement had
been ia entire accordsuco with tho coutracts---
the rcp5rts were received, but thoro is no re
cold o! any subsequent action upon them. Tho
legislature of 1871 appointed anuihtr committee,
which resulted in the adoption CT a resolution
10 the House OF Delegates nlaao nuthorG ng
the Governor to employ G: u9se to Investigate
the mailer. Ullar Governor k:mper's direti
ton proceedings were instituted 10 court to test
the validity Of the contract. tho State holding
| ,hst the Board OF Public Works had no right
to make the contingent contracts OF twenty per
cent. on Tie entire interes! Of tic state 10 the
| Chesapcnkc aud Ohio Canal when ooIy por
| !iou Ct thet amount was received by the state
u1der the decision Of The court, ard that the
board had acted illegally 10 the execution Of lis
contrGc:. The case was argued last March in
Rehnond, Colonel Charles Marshall aud Judge
Robert Ould appearing for defendants. and
Attorney General Field AMI Mcsscts. Forbes
and SgaweI for tho state OF Virginia.
| Ire Judge decided that tho bill ought To be
dismissed, for the reason that the suit was
brought without authority Of law. The Bjatd
Of Public Works was constitutional body. 1t
had ham au,hor1ad kv tho i,int rrsn.utjon IF