The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1881-01-21
. Most Interesting Case"

PETERSBURG, January IL, 1881.
Editors of he Dispatch II Is clear from
- leader of to-day that Mr.. Howards
was published by you al
most entirely (as you seemed 10 thihk) ior
the benefit OF "the idWyerS." Permit one
~ vour old subscribers, and who IS one OF
the common people, TO thank you Tor sucn
notification; for in very truth the matter
discussed is one, In my judgment, OF mort
interest to the great bulk OF MANKIND tua'
II il TO those who are supposed 10 De
|. learned in the law" Being an old'lash.
toned law-abiding citizen from my YOUTH,
have had the greatest respec, LOT tue uec'-
sions made by the supreme Judges OF our
State: but il Mr.. Howard is correct I'D tue
position he has taken, then wouia DE
worse than an idiot were TO sun ieei un-
shaken in my faith as TO all oil Their decis'ohs'
II it is true that the case referred 10 was
never before lin a judicial ,ooy the Court
OF Appeals OF Virginia untli the I%tn oei'-
tember. 1874. then it would appear equally
true that the Judges OF the Court OF Appeals
did not remember the law passed IN
1879. or if they did they did not
Give the case that attention which,
rs Judges, they should have done. TO
talk of our highest Judges taking action
in matter that our laws gave them no JurlS'
dictiOn ouer is a thing well.calculaled TO
bring dlscredit on their opinions, and II
IL 10 be hoped that the public VIII De
| favored from some source with statement
uniting different face on the matter; Out
candor requires Of me to say that very
much doubt VI that can be done, Tor Mi'
Towards review Of the case is strong one
and has the appearance OF truth. 10 pam
neonle it looks strange that our supreme
| Court Judges should have acted IN any way
confraru 10 tao, and it looks equally strange
that papers from their court should nave
been permitted to 60 up TO the supreme
| Court of tue United States (and printed al
THAI, showing at zone time the case ~oS a
nending cause in this court" when, on the
contrary, il was shown "the case was al no
| fine a pending cause in that court IN an!
sense OF course | understand that Mr..
Uoward's object is not TO reflect on the
court, but to point out how ana
when the court erred; but must insist
upon it., that If his position is true IN All
its bearings, then tue consequence VIII oe
TO seriously undermine the value OF tne
opinions of the judges OF our nlghes'
court. In this case, according 10 MI. HOW
ard. there was PLAIN law forbiddiDg them
10 do what they did or undertook TO 90. IL
was rot q difference Of judgment between
thasscourt and the Supreme Court OF the
United States. 1t is doubtful, from MI
Howard's review Of the case, whether OF
not Williams's lawyer was present at Staun'
ton Oh the 10Th Of September, 1874 twhen
il seems the case was ,orOngty before Me
court but if so, it NUT strike the com,
mon reader as little strange that ne dio
not then and there point out TO the courl
that "by Limitation the case had passed
beyond its control. 1t would seem u only
that bad been done, Williams would MOI
have been uniustly forced to pay deDl
twice, and the learned in the law wouio
have never seen the "Comcdy OF Errors
so wildly described by MI. Howard. sup
posing Mr.. Towards review oil the case l.
correct, then you must permit me 10 sa!
that it is one we'll calculated to shake Una
reverence aud confidence which the people
OF Virginia have heretofore reposed IN th'
Judgment of our highest court, ana wnlci
both YOU and myself must regret. Put
down as truth that your publishing MT
Howard's review was gratifying ana IN
teresling 10 others besides lawyers. wv.