Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1881-03-18

Ms usu. Cduuoly 20, IOO4' INV, oa,o
man Pugh is not deputy marshal, but is
employed by R. E. Latham, deputy mar
shall, and the way Pugh came to sign bis
name was that Latham was absent at the
time in Lynchburg, and Commissioner
Frler would not try the cases until som
one signed the returns. See Exhibit l5.l
Pugh also brought in a prisoner, Sam. Shu-
lar, the same time for Deputy Marshal N.
G. Wootten, and signed WOOtten' s name
on the return on the warrant, when Woot-
ten was absent for reasons explained above.
See also statement in case OF John New
berry, Deputy Marshal Wolfe, and his an
swer. Exhibit 1871 Upon an examination
of the ORIGINAL subD CglGS it was found that
NAMES OF WITNESSES WERE PUT IN
by deputy marshals and those put in by
commissioners were crossed out and 9th
ers put in without authority from any one.
TSee answers of commissioners. EX-
hibts II and 121 When some of the COM
missioners were asked why they allowed
deputy marshals to do this, they answered
that the deputy marshals told them that
they had nothing to do with the process
otter it came into their hands. In some
instances witnesses were summoned and
paid without their names being in the sub
pgnds In this way deputy marshals
would pay off those working for them, as
we'll as professional infOrmers. The SER
vices for summoning such witnesses being
illegal, the fees have been noted on the
accounts and will be disallowed in the
itemiZed statement 1t was also found
that deputy marshals in transporting pris-
oners, instead of carrying them before the
nearest commissioner for trial. as per rule
Of court, they would carry them from fif-
ty to seventy miles farther. before another
commissioner, in order to MAKE more fees.
thereby putting the Government to I'M
necessary expense and the defendant to
great inconvenience. For instance, par
ties would be arrested in Floyd county,
thirty miles from Newbern, where Com
missioner JamiSon resided, and carried
within sixteen miles of Newbern to the
railroad station, Max Meadows, and
thence sixty-four miles to Abingdon, be-
fore Commissioner Gildersleeve. Again
parties would be arrested in Franklin
county, and instead of their being carried
before Commissioner Scott, at Rocky
Mount, in the same county, the deputy
marshalS would take them to Danville
sixty to eighty miles farther. Commits
sloner Scott stated that on one occasion
prisoners came and requested trial be-
fore him as the nearest commissioner, but
the deputies refused to return the war
rants before him, some of them being his
own warrants, but carried che prisoners tt
Danville, against their wishes and hi
earnest protest. He then wrote to The
District Attorney, w. S. Lurty, complain
ing of such injustice and
ABUSE OF POWER.
and the district attorney corroborated his
statement.
In all such cases the extra mileage tt
the witnesses amounts to no small sum
and under the law the accounting officers
are unable to withhold payment. so far az
the deputy marshals are concerned, al
this illegal and unnecessary mileage vii
be disallowed in their accounts. In eX
aiming Voucher Is of Deputy j. D. Mar
tin from January l to March l, 1880, the
charge is made for transporting Clay Bur
nett, January IA, 1880, from Carroll coun
ty to Salem, one hundred and tWenty-sev
en- miles, when the same man was arrested
same day by Deputy E. W. Barksdale ano
transported one hundred and eighteen
miles to Salem. The fees of Deputy Mar
tin amount to $42.54, which are fraud
as he served the warrant on Burnett al
Salem, after he had been transported there
by Deputy +. W. Barksdale. On page
of same voucher is a charge for arresting
fence January Is. 1880, to Salem, anc
Commissioner Frier had no record of hav
ing tried this second case, and no warrant
on file. The fees in this cas- amount tc
$32 80. See certificate of Samuel Patter
son, Commissioner at Lynchburg, in rela
ton to this matter. Exhibit Is Set
also Voucher 10 of Deputy Barksdale, Ju
~ to September 1, 1879, and Voucher %
by Deputy W. S. Gravely. September to
October 6, 1879, for services in case VS.. n
W. Cabell. similar to the above. Alsp
Voucher 8, Deputy D. s. Lewis, son Of
Marshal Lewis. July to s, 1879, where he
has charged in cases q. Hall, for July 1, 8
and 8. endeavoring to arrest, and SO miles
transporting self, prisoner, and guard, c.
d. LanghOrn, when in fact he was not a
dav endeavoring to arrest, and did not
transport the prisoner mile See affida-
Wit of G. D. Langhorne. Exhibit 10
When
Deputy Lewis acknowledged the above
facts, ard said he had no explanation to
make. The fraudulent fees amount to
$3.50. See also affidavit of Thomas
Stokes and statement of Judge II. T Par
IRISH Exhibit POI in relation to the trans
portatior of the latter twenty seven miles
Nv OopuGV LduUoCu. Wuou Ill idCG Ho Was
not transported, bnt came to court at his
own expense. In all cases for retailing
where the charge is made for guards the
same will BE- disallowed as unnecessary
since the violations charged were slight
aud frivolous, and frequently prisoners
came to trial voluntarily at their own
expense. Upon an examination of the
chief deputies as to the manner in which
the special deputies were paid. Deputy
Chief Lamkin, at Danville, stated Depu-
ties W. T. Lawson and }. D. billiard, had
been employed by him until November Is.
1850, on monthly salary. and they turned
over their fees to him. He also stated that
Deputies W. r. Mills, N. G. WootJen Ia
son of o. r. Wootten), J. D. Martin,
Thomas and Joseph Kennerly, were paid
by the month by 0. r. Wootten, and that
he turned over their fees to him at their
ed these deputies in working up their
cases. [See Exhibit 81. Now, this man
o. r. Wootten was formerly deputy
marshal under Marshal Gray, and was re-
moved for gross irregularities, and is no.
toriously.
BAD MAN.
This explains why he made complaints
and got out warrants in frivolous cases for
UucS0 ucpuUlCS W tdhC lGSS. OUiI6I uGpu-
ties were hired by the month in the same
way. Upon consideration of the above
facts but one conclusion can be drawn,
and that is that the Marshal's Office is re-
sponsible for grave Irregularities and cor
ruption. The manner in which the office
has been conducted for the last eighteen
months has been disgrace to the Federal
judiciary and great hardship to the citi-
zen; for the deputy marsbals have been en-
gagged in regular traffic of Government
process, apparently recognizing no superb
or to their greed for fees. For the fiscal
year 1880 nearly $780, 900 have been expend
ed by this office, $4,000 of which by le-
ultimate and honest management could
have been saved tn the Government, only
a part of which can now be. reached by
made by the accounting Off
GERS in marshals' fee accounts. Now,
what benefit has this immense expendi-
g koo 70