Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1885-06-05
rs IT 4 INDICATION?


Our contemporary, the Valley Virqinian,
regards the recent decision of the Court of
Appeals as "a judicial vindication" of
Attorney General Blair. The case was a
suit brought by that official to draw his
salary which the Auditor withheld,
under an act of the last legislature,
until the sum of IS 412.57 was reimbursed
to the Commonwealth, which the majority
report of an investigating committee of
the House of Delegates charged the At.
warrant of law. The Virginian says:
The report of the Committee was not acted
upon by the Legislature, for the reason, we
presume, that the minority report SO over
whelmingly refuted all of its assumptions that
it would have proved offensive to the common
sense and common justice of the public to
have done SO.
We presume our contemporary has for
gotten the remarkable scene that accom-
panied the presentation of that minority
report. 1t was presented by Mr.. Bishop
of Floyd, the Republican member of the
committee. At the conclusion of its
reading. Mr.. Barton of Frederick took the
floor and said that statements contained
in it were SO in conflict with the truth and
the facts as shown before the committee,
that, Of course, any one who knew any
thing about them Knew that Mr.. Bishop,
who was member of the committee, had
not written it; that be was fairly we'll &C.
quainted with Mr.. Bishop and believed
him to be a respectable man and therefore
could not think he would misstate facts as
the minority report old. Mr.. Barton then
charged that Mr.. Bishop had not prepared
the report and added that Bishop would
his seat; let him speak He (Mr. Barton)
believed that Attorney General Blair him
self had prepared the minority report.
Mr.. Bishop remained silent in his seat.
Mr. Mustard, of Tazewell,, (Rep.) denied
that Attorney General Blair wrote the
minority report. and was followed by Mr.
Hubbard of Buckingham, (Rep.) who said
that Mr.. Barton s charge that Bishop had
not written the minority report was un-
just; that in Mr.. Barton's own expressed
opinion Mr.. Bishop was a respectable
man ard Their efOre deserved better treat
ment from his fellow member, and that
the reflection on the Attorney General
was uncalled for and did that official great
injustice, as he was personally interested
in the matter the report treated of.
Mr.. Barton replied that he wanted to
do nobody Injustice; that if he was mis-
taken in his charges no man knew it bet
ter than Mr.. Bishop, and that being pres
ent he would like to hear what he had to
say.
Mr.. Bishop maintained absolute silence.
1t would appear that the ''overwhelming''
minority report had "overwhelmed" even
its ostensible author. With such an in
tr oduction it is needless to say the weight
of the statements in the report was brok-
en- land its publication as an impartial and
judicial report rendered useless. But our
contemporary complains of the Majority re.
port that:
Partizan journals took it up and spread it
to the four winds that the case might be pre-
Judged by the public and the character of the
Attorney General damaged. Not one of them,
that we can now recall, published the ex
haustive minority report, which clearly vindi
Gated every claim of the Attorney General and
showed the large benefits which the Common
wealth had derived from his industry and
labor in her behalf.
AS the Journal of the House shows. the
Majority Report ia the exhaustive one.''
IL is thirteen pages long and goes into a
minute. itemized statement Of what the
committee ELECTED about the Attorney
Generals drafts on the Treasury. when,
what for, and so forth; while the Minority
Report covers only half that space. We