Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-11-22

SAID ABOUT that perlod OF uncertainty
when most people thought Liilian's
death suicide, and when public
attention would have dropped from the
case, in ell probability, but for Mr.. p.
j. Burton's article in the Dispatch
pronouncing 1t murder, and foul muir
der at that.
The case is set for hearing at the
January term Of the Supreme Court OF
Appeals.
| The book, Of course, contains none
of the speeches made upon the trial of
the prisoner; il is but the record Of the
facts proved and points raised. Before
the Supreme Court, when the appeal OF
Cluverius is heard, counsel will argue
the law-points raised and evidence con-
nected Herewith, in writing and orally.
Usually there are only about twenty
five copies of record printed for use
OF counsel and the Court, but in this
instance the printers, Messrs. Johns q
Goolsby, obtained leave to strike off
several hundred copies extra for sale to
whoever chooses to buy.
Mayor Carrington's Message.
The following paper will be sent to
the Council at its next meeting;
| MAYORS OFFICE.
| RICHMOND, VA, November 10, 1885. I
After the expiration OF the five days al
| lowed for filiug my veto learned mat IL
| was ordered TO be printed for distribution.
| naturally desired TO reread and revise u
| with reference TO nicely OF language ana
| such like lnelegancies. but on consultation
| with the City Clerk | decided That any
| change from the exact original language
| might invalidate the message.
| did not have time 10 revise IL within the
1 very limited time allowed by law To file ~,
| and hence 10 must stand exactly as flied,
with the penalty OF criticism for any i'm
reflections Of style, dc.
W. e. CARRINGToN, Mayor.
MAYORS OFFICE
RICHMOND. VA, November IA, 1885.
10 The Honorable Members Of he CIg COul-
eli.
Gentemen.-I return without my appro-
val your resolution appropriating 81 .569 10
John Wren, for services in the trial OF
Thomas j.. Cluverius for the murder OF
When the public learned that our present
able. diligept. and efficient Attorney fof the
Commonwealth, Hon. s. Il. Witt, felt con-
strained, from nice and proper sense of
deicacy, not TO prosecute this special case,
there was general rejoicing that he found
so competent a substitute in q. V. Mere
dith, ESD. whose high character, unIlinch-
ing courage, untiring energy, and fine
ability, at once gave confidence that "no
stone would be left unturned " which sue
cess in the prosecution made proper aud
necessary; and the result proves the conf
dence WAS well founded. These being my
sentiments. ] regret 10 differ from Mr..
Meredith In this case as TO the justice and
fairness of the claim.
Aswe differ so widely, and each is so posi-
Iva IN / "a d
eume positions and assert conclusions i'll
language which without special disclaimer,
may seem to be rude and dlscourteous.
beg therefore 10 say, as 10 Mr.. Meredith
ss well as those who agree with him that
desire TO be courteous. fair and polite IN all
] say. and beg that you will change any
seeming rude word or language | may use
tothe most kindly and polite EXPIRE sion
posi- bic which will retain the meaing de-
size 10 convey, because am acting under
solemn sebse OF duty alone. and of course
have no iil-feeling TO those from whom
differ.
IL has been asserted by Mr.. Wren and
some OF his friends that told Mr. Mere.
dith would abide by what the Council did
as 10 this claim, and hence 1 cannot pro-
perry disapprove their action on the allow
ance.
IL is true | told Mr. Meredith words to
that effect and said | would rely on his
judgment. in great degree as TO the just
ness OF any claim presented. This pledge
was scarcely proper, yet IL was made on my
faith in Mr. Meredith. had no idea MIR.
Meredith could be 80 greatly misled as
think he has been by Mr.. Wren, or that he
could become so enthused as an advocate
of Wrens claim as TO be an unsafe adviser
as 10 It's merits and almost unapproachable
with any reasons IN opposition TO IL.
surely, when my own knowledge taught
me the rates charged by Wren were un-
usual and exorbitant and the Items OF ex.
pense unreasonable and unnecessary by
comparison with my own payments for Ike
service TO those | employed with the "Se-
cret Service Fund" when. from my own
knowledge. he had credit Tor work done by
Others, and thus megn Ned the value OF his
services In this case. and when from care
fui Investigation with those conVersant
with all the facts and who were thoroughly
reliable, l ascertained that he had fur.
nished no Item OF evidence which aided
materially in the conviction OF Cluverius.
| l could not be held bound by casual
| pledge which would violate my duty ana
| oath of office.
BY Wren's own acts and charges, and by
| the unexpected position OF advocate OF ms
| claim by Mir. Meredith, whom L relied on
| TO be an impartial adviser in the matter. /
| was fully release Il from any pledge. L know
| Nj. Meredith is honest in his convictions;
am equally sure he is in error as 10 ms
| conclusions as 10 what Wren actually did
| and OF course as 10 the value properly 10 Dc
| placed ON the services.
| Having disposed OF these outside matters,
| beg TO assign my reasonsfor not approving
! your resolution.
| IL 10 me that under the record as TO
this claim II ought to have Deen ,b re, Cnm
| mon Council for its further appfoNai, anu
not made final by reconsideration Oh a
former rejection under the 'echhicai "oru'
| ing of doubtful "rule."
| The Common Council had first adopted
this resolution the Board OF Aldermen re-
! 1ecting IL. ,,,. .,...,...
| went back TO the Common Council and was
| rejected On that body; so that In reality, II
| mas stood rejected on both bodies. while nor
IL stands oPr0ued oy enW orc oodp unoer
| though IL has notified the Board of Alder
| men OF change In It's opinion OF the pro-
| priety OF the claim, by as rejection Vhen De-
| lore Il the second time, instead of It's former
| approval. has had no chance to show Its con-
ciusion under the changed position OF the
Board OF Aldermen.
| Certainly this is not courtesy or justice TO
the Common Council, and IL also seems very
doubtful in lis legality.
know II is said the resolution was some
| what different under which the last action
of the Common Council rejected the claim,
but IL is equally true that IL WAS the same
| claim, for the same services, in the same
case, ard to the same party therefore the
last action OF the Common Council is de-
claration Of its disproval OF the same claim
| II had formerly approved.
The question OF your power and right 10
legally allow such claim as this, mas been
| discussed in the written opinion OF TWO
reputable attorneys, presented before you.
who assert that IL is not legal; in this opin-
| ion, i am reliably informed that Major
Leigh X. Page, n former city attorney, and
Mr. Edward Y. Cannon, a learned attorney
| OF this city, as well as several other attor-
neys fully concur. AS this view of the case
has been presented to you, l simply call
YOU attention TO 10, and leave you to deter.
mine whether you can properly disregard
such an array OF legal opinion against the
claim. when unfortunately you are denied
the advice OF an impartial City Attorney in
! | the fact that the present able incumbent OF
| that Office IL so far an advocate or Wren 4
| els i'm as 20 be an unsafe counsellor TO you
In the premises.
II IN the universal sentiment. so far as |
, | have heard II. that this claim, II paid at
all. ought 10 be psid on the STATE. because II
Is for services rendered TO the state, under
I | the direction Of State prosecutor. in q
state prosecution, for an offence against a
I | state law.
IL is harsh judgment ON the integrity and
sense OF justice OF the State TO say 10 will
not do what II is so universally conceded IL
. ought 20 do, without even presenting the
n claim and seeking Its payment before the
I Legislature. now so soon to assemble
h 1 IL u unjust 10 burden this city with a
charge which properly rests upon the State
alone; and II Is certainly unwise and i'm
! polite for the city to voluntarily assume
. the burden ia advance OF n refusal by the
I State TO bear IL.
such precedent by the city, 20 seek 10
| assun g liability for the state for claims not
properly chafgeable 10 the city. can only
lead 10 heavy and unjust taxation, II not TO
s.ufs 49, aaa.a.