Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-11-26
JOHN WREN'S CLAIM.
MR.. C. Y. xEREDIrFS REPLY.

The Veto Message Of MaJer CnrrinEton An
swsred-The Document TO be Head By ih'
Council.
Mr.. Charles v. Meredith, acting
Commonwealth's attorney in the case
of Thomas j. Cluyerius, charged with
the murder Of Fannie Lillian Madison,
and city attorney for Richmond, has
prepared and had printed the following
reply to the veto message Of the Mayor
in the matter Of the claim Of John
Wren for services rendered as detec-
tive in the case. Last night printed
copies were furnished members Of the
Council. Mr.. Meredith's reply reads
To the Members Of the City Council o.
Richmond:
Gentlemen,-Like other citizens,
have had an opportunity to read the
May or's veto as to the Wren bill in
public print before it has been acted on
by yourselves. Under such circum-
stances there can be no doubt as to my
right to reply to it. Instead of pub
fishing it in the newspapers, l prefer
to furnish each Of you with a copy oi
my reply, as ! deem such course more
proper.
Had the Mayor offered legal argu.
ment simply against the bill, or had he
merely stated facts as reasons for his
veto, doubt whether | should further
trespass on your attention. But hisp paper
is so pregnant with errors that | do not
think it would be justice to Mr.. Wren
for me to be silent.
OF course | have nothing to do with
any fear that the Mayor may entertain
about Mr.. Wren working against him
next spring. That is q side issue into
which | do not enter. am only in
terested in the merits Of the claim.
The Mayor is pleased to express
doubt as to the power of the city to
pay this bill. Doubtless he has forgot
ten that when read him my printed
note be told me that Judge Christian
was mistaken in saying that he had no
power to authorize Mr.. Wren to work.
Doubtless he has forgotten that he
stated to me, as proof that the city had
the power, the fact that the Council ap-
propriated every year secret-seryice
fund-which is nothing else but de-
tective fund. Doubtless he has forgot
ten that he told me that he had used
that fund more economically than
any of his predecessors. Doubtless
he has forgotten that at my
request he employed two persons in the
Cluverius case, unconnected with Mr..
Wren, to do certain detective service,
ard paid them himself out of the Sc
cret-seryice fund. Surely lie must have
forgotten these facts, or else his mind
would not now be clouded with doubt.
1t is scarcely possible that the Mayor,
thoroughly aroused at the time he wrote
his veto as to the necessity Tor caution,
would have his legal opinion influenced
by what somebody told him Major L..
K. Page or Mr.. L. Y. Cannon had re-
marked. ! cannot suggest to you any
reason for this change Of opinion.
1t seems that the Mayor had some
difficulty in imagining reason that he
could offer the public for my advocating
the payment Of the bill. He has been
driven to make the amusing statement
that | was fooled by Mr.. Wren. Does
it not strike any sensible man as absurd
that, if | were the man Of such trans
cendent qualities as the Mayor flatter-
iBgly ascribes to me, / should have
been fooled by Mr.. Wren? Fooled
how, or when? Did l not recognize
each person, whether policeman,
detective, or other citizen, that gave
me at different times each piece Of
evidence? How could l., or any other
man of ordinary sense, have been fool
ed? | must have known at the time |
was told. Is it possible that a few days
after | would receive a piece Of
evidence Mr.. Wren would eioquently
persuade me to believe that he gave me
that piece? Would the Mayor have
been fooled by such absurdity? If he
would not be, then / see no potent rea-
son to believe that | was.
hope | shall not anger him as much
as Mr.. Wren seems to have done if |
suggest that it smacks Of some vanity
for an outsider to say that the lawyer
who managed case could not remem-
Der from whom he got his evidence,
and then to try to show that he, the
outsider, knew more about it than the
lawyer did.
But before | proceed to show the
misleading statements in the Mayors
veto, let me define my position.
The Mayor has said that he expected
me to be an impartial adviser" If
he meant by that that he expected me
not to earnestly ask for the payment Of
Mr.. Wren's bill, l have but to say that
no word or intimation Of mine contri-
buted to his belief. | have never yet
seen the time when | would authorize
a man to 60 to work in case and then
say that he ought not to be paid, as his
services were voluntary" and "not
necessary"
am an advocate Of Mr.. Wren's bill.
| have always been so. So much so
that willingly consented to Mr.. Glas-
COWS proposal that the opinion of an
outside lawyer should be sought. So
much so that | feel now just as l did
when | stated to the Common Council
that if any member of that body object
ed to my arguing in favor Of the Wren
bill because was city attorney, he
had but to say so and | would resign.
l should be ashamed of myself if | were
not an earnest advocate oft. | believe
his charges to be fair. l know that he
rendered faithful and efficient services.
/ know that Mr.. Wren was authorized
by the Mayor to work in the case.
Under such circumstances l cannot
join the Mayor in asking that the bill
be not paid.
Let me call yeur attention to the fact
that, in his card in the Dispatch Of No
vember 18th, in speaking Of the alleged
facts in his veto, the Mayor says: 81
ascertained these facts by looking to the
record Of the trial and after full con-
ference with Judge d. C. Richardson,
Major John Poe, Captain Charles Ii.
Epps, and Sergesnts A. NJ. Tomlinson
and E. P. Hulce, who were most active