The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-11-16
self brought home renewed feelings OF re.
spect and regard for the authorities and
people OF Virginia"
".I,,stice."


issue answered the arguments which "Jus-
ticc y advances In the following COMMUNE
cation. He viii notice, first, that he did
not quote enough Of the 10Th section TO
enable the reader to get at its meaning.
This omission we have supplied. He will
notice, secondly, that though there was no
doubt satisfactory evidence furnished to
Judge CHRISTIAN OF the appointment OF
BEyERrpoE, yet there has been no law
quoted that applies to a person collecting
delinquent capitation-taxcs. Mr.. BEvE-
RIDGE can't be a de fdcto officer unless there
is an Office which somebody else might I'LL
lawfuly-unless there be dc J,re officer.
/ Lord EIIENBoRoUoH's dictum won't cover
BEvERIDGE's case. BEvRMDGE can't have
the reputation OF being an officer that has
no existence, or OF filling an Office that
does not exist. Nothing that "Justice !"
saws or quotes as TO de JGCto officers APP
plies to the case Of BEyERIDGE according
to our view Of that case.
We repeat here that we did not mean to
do Injustice TO Judge CHRISTIAN. II he
made the decision after "full investiga-
( tion.v we must OF course apologize for
saying that he did 1t on-hand. Neverthe-
less, whilst conceding that he is always
careful" and always tries to be "iust"
and accurate" yet il wcare not mistaken
he was greatly in error in the decision
uuder consideration.
RICHMOND, November II, 1881.
Editors Of the Dispatch:
In your editorial comments on n letter
signed "Fairncss," in your issue OF the
18th, in which the writer shows that the
receipts OF w. II. Beverage as collector OF
capitation-taxes for the city of Richmond
were received after an opinion given by
Judge George l.. Christian. which was
copied in that letter, you say:
"Judge Christians decision is entitled TO
no weight, as he himself would doubtless
readily concedc. seeing that the question
| was not argued before him, and he had no
/ time TO investigate it for himself, being
compelled TO decide the case off-hand. His
! opinion shows that he suppOses there is a
law authorizing collectors OF delinquent
capitation-taxes to be appointed by the
Auditor. There is no such law, however,
/ if the lawyer OF whom we spoke yesterday
I is correct in his opinion"
/ Whilst il was doubtless unintentional on
your part, these comments do grave injus-
/ lice to Judge Christian, who, rs is well
/ known by all who have practiced in his
court, does not decide cases "on-hand,"
and, rs it il q matter OF prime importance
/ that the confidence Of the community in its
+ judiciary should not be impaired without
/ at least a reasonable cause, i desire to call
your attention TO the law up9n which with
out doubt Judge Christian based his opin-
| ion, and under which that opinion was
certainly correct.
The 34th section OF the act approved
\ April /, 1879 (Acts 1889, p. 1920, pro-
yIdes that "thc Auditor OF Public Ac-
counts may appoint collector in any coun-
( Is or corporation to collect arrears OF taxes
/ therein, and may allow him a reasonable
compensation, to be agreed on (befoTe the
( service is cOmmenced) and approved by
the Executive. which compensation shall
not exceed 30 per centum OF what may be
collected and paid intothe public treasury"
| The 18th section provides for the execution
OF proper bond by the collector so APP
pointed and for q reasonable time being
allowed him by the Auditor for making his
returns. The 10Th section OF the same act
requires the Auditor to place the dein-
quent property and capitatiou-taXes Gin
the hands Of any sheriff, sergeant, consta-
bic, or collector for collection" dc.
| Judge Christian in his opinion says that
satisfactory evidence was furnished him Of
the appointment Of Beveridge by the Au-
ditor, and Of his qualification by giving
IL hn Of
have held otherwise than that Beyeridge
was sat least de .fdcto officer" and that
his acts were "valid rs to the public"
| The law in terms gives the Auditor the
power of appointing such an officer; the
officer is appointed, qualities, and acts as
such. This certainly constitutes him de
! fdcto il not de jure officer. Lord Ellen
borough defines IN officer de .fdcto to be
" one who has the reputation OF being the
officer he assumes TO be, and yet Is not a
good officer in point of law."-6 East,
/ 36S. And this definition has been adopted
/ by text-wTiters and courts; by our own
/ Supreme Court in Griffin Us. Cunningham,
10th Grattan; and the same Court in the
| same case says: "The official acts Of an
officer de .facto, when they concern the
public or the rights of third parties, are as
valid and efectual as though he was
an officer de ure."-GriGin's Exccu-
tor Us. Cunningham, 20 Graft, A..
According to these definitions / do not see
how Judge Christians opinion could have
been otherwise than it was. IL is not for
| Judges TO make or unmake, but to eXpound
/ the law That Judge Christians eXposi-
/ ton was in this case correct am as clearly
of opinion as | am that it was made not off,
hand, but after full investigation, and |
doubt not you will gladly correct the I'M
intentional injustice that you have done
one Of the most careful, accurate, and just
/ judges who has ever graced our bench.
JUSTICE.