The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1881-05-12
Marshal Lewis's Replv.

Marshal Lewis's Reply.
UNITED STATES MARSHAL JOHN F. LEwIs's
DEFENSE AGAINST CHARGES OF SPECIAL
AGENT LANCASTER.
From the Richmond Dispatch.
HARRIsoNRURG, May 2, 1881.
The answer of United States Marshal John
F. Lewis, of the Western district of Virginia
to the report Of @. G. Lancaster, special agent
of the Department of Justice, a copy of which
was called for by Senator Malone on Thurs
day the 2Sth ultimo, begins by stating that his
answer was necessarily delayed until the 9th
ultimo, because he could not obtain from the
Department of Justice copies of the exhibits
filed by Lancaster. He was unabla to obtain
them until they had been printed in compli-
ance with Senate resolution to that effect
The answer shows that the report is not only
not sustained by the exhibits to which Special
Agent Lancaster refers, but that said exhibits
actually contradict him in many instances. 1t
declares that the marshal and his deputies
| could therefore rest the case upon Lancaster's
report and exhibits with confidence that no
| impartial tribunal could sustain him in his
report They do not propose to rest under
this negative sort of a vindication. however
but propose "to carry the war into Africa"
and to prove that Lancaster has placed him
self in the position of falsify1ng even the re-
cords" and convicted himself of misstatements,
as demonstrated by his own exhibits"
1t then goes on to show by Lancasters own
exhibits that his assertion in reference to the
number of warrants issued upon complaints of
deputy marshals and their workers" is wrong
| to the extent Of 1856 warrants-more than one
| fourth of the whole number.
| In reply to the allegation of great greed for
| fees, it shoWs-frst, that where deputy mar
shals made complaint against parties and pro-
| cured warrants for their arrest. it was upon
| the urgent request of business men who com
planned that their business was being interfer-
ed with by the illicit traffic in distilled spirits
In support of this statement large number of
letters are filed, mostly from the propretors
| and managers Of large iron works in South
| west Virginia. Secondly, it shows by certifi-
Gates under the hands and seals Of county
clerks, byr'letters from county Judges and
| Commonwealth attorneys, that in great many
counties the grand juries had to take action
| against these retail liquor-dealers, thus show
| ing that if there is any cause tor complaint it
is because deputy marshals and deputy col
lectors hdoe not been strict enough IN enforcing
the daos
| In regard to the assertion that deputy mar
shals employed professional informers, the
answer makes an indignant denial, and calls
attention to the fact that Lancaster's assertion
to that effect Is utterly unsupported by even
an attempt at proof.
To the charge that deputy marshals took
prisoners by the nearest United States COM
missioner to others from fifty to sixty miles
further, the answer asserts that the deputies
simply obeyed the mandate of the writs, and
carried the prisoner wherever they were COM
manded by the said Writs
The answer, in referring to Lancaster's
charge against Marshal Lewiss son, uses these
words: 1.-The next charge is that my son D.
5. Lewis (who was for time one of my depu-
tles) had made a fraudulent account against the
Government amounting to SIT Co." His (my
son's) statement is filed herewith. marked
Exhibit NJ" and it shows conclusively that
the charged entirely groundless; and as Special
Agent Lancaster was in possession of all the
facts IN reference to this transaction when he
made his report he was guilty of an outra-
geous and malicious SANDER
Ii is alleged that Lancaster was guilty of
sulprsssa0 re,S when he pretended to quote
from the court records, in that he only gave
the number of persons sentenced, and with
held the number found guilty and the number
acquitted.
In reference to the increased expense of the
district for the fiscal year included between
the LIST of July, 1879, and July LIST, $780, the
answer ASSERTS that it was owing to the large
increase OF the criminal business, and this
| increased business arose from the activity and
vigilance OF the revenue officials, who seemed
determined to break up the illicit traffic in
liquor. 1t says the expenses since that date
have not been so large, as the efforts of the
revenue officers seem to have resulted in sup
pressing this illicit traffic to great extent 1t
contends, however, that the Western district
Of VirOiOia fran no &c ,;+ =,
necessarily an expensive district, as it embrac-
es all OF the mountainous parts of the State,
where the people from time immemorial have
been accustomed to distIll their own fruit, &C.,
and sell the product, and where they conse-
quently look upon the revenue laws as harsh
and oppressive and delight in evading and
multiplying them. 1t calls attention to the add-
tlonal fact in proof ofthis, that the district
borders upon the States of North Carolina,
Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia
Marshal Lewis claims in his answer that
when he suspended a number of deputies it
was done upon representations made to him
by Lancaster, which representations made to
him by Lancaster he has since discovered to
I have been false.
The answer concludes as follows: "Ihe
great discrepancies between the allegations of
the report and the exhibits filed in support of
them, together with the reply of the parties
CChouiCu tlClI A)ldLdtlOnS anu eNlUeuCt
coupled with other facts that have be-
come known to me since the examination and
publication primarily in certain leading Dem
ocrat papers, of Special-Agent Lancaster's re-
port, compels me TO the conclusion that this
whole movement was but an artful and SIMS
ter scheme instigated for the purpose of pre-
JUDGING the existing Administration against
me-
Again asserting my earnest desire to coop
crate heartily and etfectually with your de-
partment in reducing the expenses of this
district in any legitimate manner, | haye the
honor to be-" &C.
The exhibits referred to in Marshal Lewis's
answer embrace extracts from the records of
the United States courts; letters from Daniel
f. Trgg, Esq, who is a son-in-aw and law
partner of United States Senator Johnston;
from Lieutenant Governor General James A.
Walker from Circuit-Judge John H. Fulton
from County-Judges Lybrook, Ward, McTeer,
Mays, Bailey, Morgan, and Cornett; from
Commonwealths-A ttorneys John S. Crockett,
}. ID. Watts, II. W. Holdmay and c. r. Dun
can; from Deputy Collectors W. O Austin,
K. M. Goodell, and G. d. Smith from United
States Internal Revenue Agent Tracie; certifi-
Gates from County Clerks Sexton and Orr;
and II letter from Attorney General James A.
Field.
U. S. CoURT-A letter dated the 9th, from
Harrisonburg to the Richmond "Dispatch"
says;
United States Court for the Western Dis