Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1884-08-26

In response 10 that part Of the inquiry
which calls for the authority under which
these payments were made, the Auditor
said: "That upon the presentation OF
these claims inquired OF Mr.. W. II. Smith,
whose long service in this office made him
familiar with the rulings OF my predcees-
sors. whether these claims were in accord
ance with law and should be paid. Mr..
Smith stated that they were, and that At
torncy-General Field had been paid such
fees by my predecessor. accordingly ap-
proved them.
was not aware that there was any ques-
tiOn as 10 the legality OF the claims OF the
Acknowledgement for fees until after the
last Of them had been paid. In conference
with Mr. W. X. Meredith (who had been
engaged to assist the attorney for the Com
monwealth in coupon cases. In relation 10
suits OF this class then pending in the Cir
cult Court Oi the city OF Richmond, he in-
formed me that the AttOrncy-Gcneral,i in his
iudgment,waS not entitled 20 fees orappear-
ance on behalf Of the Commonwealth I'm any
suit. and recited the act of March -, 1873.
thoreupon inquired Of Mr.. Smith upon
what ground in view 81 this act the custom
had prevailed Of paying these fees, and was
informed that they had been paid under a
decision o. the supreme Court OF Appeals
Of Virginia In the case OF ThOn against the
Commonwealth. have carefully examined
The report OF that with view TO a proper
understanding Of itS bearing upon this
subject and my judgment u that It does
not warrant the paymens of these fees.
H. view. however, OF she fact that AttOr.
ney-GCncralS Field and Blair have inter.
pTctcd this case 10 authorize the payment
OF these fees. ] venture to suggest that fur
theT legislation may be proper to put the
question at rest.
Il may be right to add that after the last
payment Of fees 10 the Attorney. General.
discovered that some OF them were for al
legged services in proceedings instituted
for the redemption u coupons which had
been rendered in payment for licenses.
and that the cases had been dockeled
by consent OF the Acknowledgement
without the knowledge Of the Treasurer.
10 whom the coupons hid been rendered.
aud judgment given 10y consent OF the
Attorney-General against the Common
wealth.
The fact that these were proceedings for
redemption o: coupons rendered for IT,
CehSeS did not appear on the certificate OF
the elCIk to the Auditor upon which the
fees had been paid, nor did It appear in
any OF the papers or orders in the several
eases. All the papers and orders stated
that the coupons had been rendered iOT
tdICs
Dceming the action oi the Attorney
General III cOnSentlng TO the judgments in
these eases TO be contrary 10 the express
directions oi the Law, | made 4 demand
upon him for the return Of these fees in a
written communication Of the date Of June
18th last, in which expressly reserved the
question A. 10 his right to fees in any case,
upon the ground that no judgment could
have been entered against the Commons
wealth except by his consent.
TO this demand tho Attorney-G General 10.
piled verbally within the past few days
declining 10 refund ;he fees, stating that in
these cases the attorney fol the plaintiff
called on HIM and asked waiver Of process;
that be, aS his habit was in all cases
when requested 10 extend this professional
courtesy, did SO. because = he had not done
so the process would have been executed
on him by the proper officer; that the suit
would have been brought whether
he had waived process or not, and
whether be- had consented 10 indg-
ment or not, aud that rs he would
have appeared in the suits brought. and
upon their termination would have. upon
the certificate Of the clerk, been entitled tn
his fees, he had only received in these cases
what he would have received il process
had been executed, whether the suits were
dismissed or judgments given for the plain
tiG. Very respectfully.
N0RrON MARYE.
Auditor OF Public Accounts.
The communication was laid on the table
and ordered to be printed.