The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-02-18

| brief. printed in small type, OF sixty.three
pages. And yet Mr.. Howard, carefully
| omitting all reference 10 these facts, pro-
duces the impression that he was left alone
| TO cope singIe-handed with The great qnes-
ton of the controversy; that be was hur-
red into the cases unprepared; and de.
clares " was understood that the cases were
passed upon at the March term. before his
brief could be printed or nds considered by
the court. We pass by without discus
SION the inquiry how Mr.. Howard as
certained Whist occurred In the confer
ence OF the judges, which are never In
tended 10 be known TO the public. Mr.
I Howard omts also TO state that The March
term Of the court lasted until the 30th day OF
April. and Tor q period OF more than one
month the cases were ibe subjfc OF reDeated
conferences and discussion by the judges.
The questions involved were in very mar
row limits, being upon the construction of
half dozen clauses in policy OF insurance
and the facts connected with the brrning
Of Richmond. Every judge on tins bench
! will bear me witness that no cases before
this court ever received more careful con-
sderaiiOn. All the arguments made orally
and i'm writing and both the records were
fully considered during the five weeks OF
the session. II i true that all the judges
did make up their opinions before The court
adjourned, except one Of the majority, who
preferred to have further time. Indeed,
Judge Anderson, whose opinion Mt.
Howard Justly compliments 20 highly, not
onlv made up but wrote his opinion. and
was ready to deliver it before the court ad-
journed, as was also Judge Burks, who con.
Cured with bIm in the results.
Mr.. Howard, Of course, does not attn
butte 10 these gentlemen want OF consdera-
tiOn in deciding the cises at the March
term; they, know, gave his v0Iuminous
briefs The fulles. attention. as did the other
Ijudge-. Such are The facts. and 1t Will be
seen bow lItlle warranted was Mr.. Howard
IN the statements he has made.
In anOrber part Of his note Mr.. Howard
SAYS hat he would be glad 10 have an Op-
portunlty Of showing what hc "humbly
concelyes to be the cleAr antacODisms ,and
conflicts between parts Of The opinion OF
the learned Judge ChriSiian, and OF that
opinion and the opinion OF the honorable
Judge staples" There. again, Mr.. Howard
is
FAULT.
Judge S'aples expressed bis entire concur
renee with the greater part OF nv opinion.
He cOncurred with ne, thai after Virginia
had seeded from he Union by the vote of
her people she became a foreign enemy TO
the people and Government OF the United
States. and The INVASION OF her soil bv Fede-
raj armies was 10 be treated as foreign in
vIslon. He agreed with nc that the inya-
sion OF Grants army was the prOXimale
cause OF the burning Of Richmond, and Il,
bv the terms OF the policies IN these ciSes
the company was not 10 be liable for los,
when the lire resulted from the invasion of
foreign enemy, the insured were not en-
titled 10 recover. There were some points
made in my opinion rs 10 which Judge STA
pies expressed no opinion, but he cOncurred
upon what we both regarded n, the
main ground; and this The counsel
c Ills "anllIOnisms and Inconsistencies,
which he desires 10 expose. 50 Tar as Al
| legged Inconsistencies between different
pirts OF my opinion are concerned, can
only commend 10 IN intelligent profession
the reading Of The whole opiulon, and not
| ;he dI.ionted extracts which Mr.. Howard
has chosen TO print. Mr. Howard says he
sincerely hopes an opportunity OF making
such exposure may be af rded him by re-
heiring.. " II not, il must be Sough, in
review elsewhere" Does Mr.. Howard
mean to hold over our heads the terror Of a
review from his pen as 4 means OF obtaining
rebearing? Does he wish 10 eXt0rl from
oui fears what he may fail 10 obtain by an
appeal TO our reason as JUDGES? IL would
seem indeed that such Is his purpose. SucO
| 4 line Of argument addressed To- the highest
appellate court Of a State has, so far ~ we
know, bur one parallel, and Mr. How1rd
has furnished it ih the concluding pIrt OF
his argument. | will give sucn portions Of
it Is are most mlterih. He says: " But
L., l.. nd "a nI ftpoun1
which il is deemed proper and imperative
that rehearing sIOnld be asked. The
writer approaches il with the greatest re-
| uctance, but he will meet it ~ be would
meet any other demand made upon him bt
The OverpOwering obligations OF duly.'
And after declaring that The etfIciDg tnger>
of time had left upon the PRECEDENT OF the
court the iniirmiie~ OF decay, and alter
char ging that eand his son were Interested
| in the >ubiect-matter Of controversy, and
| that many difficult questions were involved
| IN the ease,
Mr.. HOWARD PROCEEDS A. FOLLOWS
"Upon all these important and dItlicut
| legal questions the venerable and ieeble
| Judge undertook 10 pass in matters which
directly involved his own interests and
those OF hi, SON."
Wa, he an impnt'al and c)mpeicn' in 'ge 10 ST
uuou and cefrrwine our right at the same iimc
That be was jn ically deter miniug hi, own n MS
and those of hls son Dy rendering he a iiig W
he indgcs ended 10 decide the tr % ms
whole litigaiI0n forever - g pur" ana oi V m
fcgIty of h, purDOes there can be no gus Ion: bu
H. legal competency am j'hic;ai pr"prie OF Mt
AZ empting o pass upUn our rights, "h'n aI>o iAs~
ING upon bi. own, / NeFS d'HrIehl Wlltr. i"'
rf tuaf he decided Tsanst hiu SER ana MS own ef
does NOT ait tbe cn'e In thr lca't. It, ln' ea
va, 70 b. eXpecpd enoNing. "a AL OF ~ 30. thc
Ucr.crGiculliIiy of his mind cEwfrd 1giinsi his
rurnFs." We, Therefore, most rt'plct'
fulv 4 earnestly do Obj G. aud pTO tSt thil ne
iae OF tnis great n igatoU shiii not Oc cttermlhed
hy the sting voice OF incOWp tent az ana ~'Uh
more iuc1mlcie per.onal incrrsi We wI-h 10
hav- and respectfully request ~ Ieast an imp'rl At
ana dislniere,;ed tribunal. We ak i,r uubasse'
ins ice ard othis We are entitled by the ton'tiln
ii0n aud laws Of the State.
"rhr rscI rhat IDi, l. ihe highest appellate cour'
- which this Mtg dOn can now be takeh sh ut. II
V uid -eem render bal court lut The more par lci-
lar IN he di'charge of ii' daly ana me NOR acre
10 rrnG rug a decision inherently infected ana
yitir'ed with iitgaiy uo1n me rrinelpic, oi "ni-
yer. a Jurisprudence aOilshtd tNerywh'r a 'le
ntnfar, law IN all the csi ned Ounrles Ot nj
kinG. Aud IL Is right ana prODrr 40 Hhd my no
such decisiOn would cOuid he hereafter regaidfi
or recognized 10y the appellants. aLd st le 5 by
o. her ttors inst Ibis company as de.trmirlus
Iudiciay awning whIieycr as 10 their IN = and
ma th- whole business Will II necessary, ne dl "
inquired Into and BE- made he Inriur or sotclal ju-
cicIa inquiry and AL OF the fac OF III cise un-
foldel IN respect 10 IN" nhY>icat and mrnai iuch
ptcfy Of IN, nerble judg- by reason OF tx rene
aye and iDhrmH and ~ iie CT IN eIe.i ~ him-
self aud his son, 10 ac' judcall' III ihs iightl"n
aad upon ihst ltqulry sum OF tnr honorable jugs
of this court as may hen be living VIII be cid'd
upon - important witnesses of SPECIAL kOoNie
10 ies.ify."
II is proper further 10 state that Mr.. H ".
ard has dl clarod through the pubic Dre's.
IN d clrd signed by BIN. that II The court
should grant a reheariDg it @as MS purpose
TO suppress his structures upon the pTe'i-
dent Of the court.