Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-09-23

by him. MY att0rneU-ucneral james
q. FIELD and Colonel John II. Guy
not only demurrcd to this return as inc
sufficient in law, but made replica
ton that there was no indebtedness
on my part to the State, and / JUS
titled the payment Of every dollar
of fees to me by the Auditor.
] filed as exhibits and parts Of my re-
plication Barton's report, which claimed
an indebtedness against me for fees,
mileage, stationery, &C., as also the
minority report; and from pages 2 and
of the opinion Of . majority Of the
court it will be seen that it was upon
these pleodings and facts that the
court decided in my favor. | repeat
that The pleadings were these, as
shown by the opinion itself
to wit, the petition for mandamus.
the rule, the Auditors return claiming
an Indebtedness against me, my de-
murrer to that return, and my repli-
cation to that return, in which denied
that there was any indebtedness on my
part to the State. Barton's statement
to the contrary is misrepresentation.
On page IL of the opinion Of the court
the following language will be found.
which refutes Barton's reckless state
ments:
1.-The Auditor in his return says /:
The said petitioner has improperly
and without authority Of law drawn
from the Treasury during his term of
Office the sum OF s5,4l2.87.' He does
not explain how this is possible under
the system Of guards and checks and
balances used in the payment Of money
out Of the Treasury Of the State but
the record in this case shows that every
dollar paid to the Attorney-General
has been paid upon the warrants Of the
Auditor, and often certificates from the
clerk Of this court and of the Circuit
Court Of Richmond city and the Su-
preme Court Of the United States, &C.
cording to law"
1t will be seen that the very sum
mentioned, which Barton claims was
unlawfully paid me, was declared by
the court to have been paid me ''accord-
ing to lar" A majority of the Court
of Appeals concurred in this opinion,
while Judge Lewis's dissenting opinion
was rested on the question as to whether
mandamus was the proper remedy or
not.
On page Is Of said opinion the court
use the following plain language in alb
solute exoneration from all blame on
my part:
SIT was stated in the argument, and
admitted by the eminent and able coun-
sci on both sides of this case at bar,
that General James G.. Field, the dis
tinguished and honored immediate pre-
decessor of petitioner in the office Of
Acknowledgement of Virginia, had
placed exactly the same construction
upon the law regulating his fees of
office, and had drawn from the Treasury
of the State the same fees Of Office as
Acknowledgement Blair had done upon
the proper certificates of the clerks Of
courts, State and Federal, and upon the
audit allowance and warrants of the
Auditor Of the State that he is in
exactly similar case with petitioner, his
successor.
at is, we think, abundsntly clear,
from the record. that there can be no
possible legal or moral wrong in the
acceptance of their fees of Office by
either General Field or Attor-
ney-General Blair, as they were paid
to them, and they accepted them, I'M
der claim of right and under the con-
struction and practice Of the law placed
on the statutes by the clerks Of the
courts, the Auditor of Public Accounts,
and the Treasurer of the State. Tho
all acted conscientiously in what they
believed to be the discharge Of official
duty and legal right"
1t will be found upon an investiga-
ton that this man Barton's letter to
the Dispatch is but rehash of his re-
port to the Legislature, and | have
shown that his own party was too de-
cent to adopt it. and that the Supreme
Court Of this State has repudiated it !;
and thus it is that Barton, like all dis
credited witnesses, is now bawling out
against the jury and court that
would not accept his statements.
His attack upon Judge Fauntle-
roy, Of the Court of Appeals,
who delivered the opinion of the court,
is so mean and malicious that it not
only deserves, but will no doubtreceive,
the condemnation and contempt not
only Of the bench and bar of the State,
who have respect for tribunals Of JUS
tice, but by all good people, regardless
of party affiliations. When judges are
thus assailed by man who pretends
to be a lawyer. justice would soon be
brought into disrepute if countenanced
by good people. Barton's letter is
utterly inconsistent in this, that in the
first portion of it he attempts to show
that the legality of my fees was not
sanctioned by the court. while in the
concluding portion of it he rails out
against Judge Fauntleroy because he
does sustain me in my official conduct.
As to Barton's information that it
was my purpose upon the adjournment
of the General Assembly to resign my |
Office to receive an appointment from
the Governor to fill an unexpired term,
and thus to defeat the purposes of the |
Act No. l47, it is absolutely false. |
never conceived such purpose, nor did |
| ever see or hear it suggested until |
read Barton's letter. | have now
given the public my understanding
Of the law and facts OF this
matter, and / have shown it
is an effort on Barton's part to appeal
from his own Legislature, that would
not endorse him, and from the Supreme
Court, that repudiated him, and to set
up his rejected committees report as
The law and facts of my case.
The reason Of my delay in answering
his letter is that l find it impossible to
keep up with the small pop-guns that
ire constantly firing in my rear.
Very respectfully, F. S. BLAIR.
Personal.
The Lorillards want s4OO. 900 for