Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1885-09-04

Republicans had the government, and yet
these peripatetic orators are talking such
stuff to sensible people For the benefit OF
those who may doubt any figure here
given, we suggest that Mr.. Fairs re-
port, from which they are taken, is in our
Office open for their examination.
THE RECORD AGAINST AN IN
TER VIEW.
Few men have made more pecuniarily
profitable or politically Improbable re
cord than Mr.. Blair has made in his
single term Of official life. Our Republi-
can contemporary. the Valley Virqinia;a,
publishes an interview with him on the
first branch-the pecuniary pro6ts-of his
record. 1t is a column in length, from
which we infer that the Attorney General
got in about all he had to say. We select
some OF the points that State officer makes
He cites particular cases in which he at
tended to the interests of the State in
courts to which his official duties do not
call him and for which, in consequence. he
deems that he could legally receive fees.
and here is one:
Zone case was in the courts of the State OF
North Carolina and involved about $4,000. sup
pose no Bourbon will hold 1 am compelled to aD-
pear for the Commonwealth in the courts of other
States"
In this case the official record shows that
whether twenty thousand or twenty mil
lion was involved, the State of Virginia
only realized 81 5l505. Auditor Allen al
lowed Attorney General Blair for COL
lecti0g this a fee of 1000. and
that in the face of Section25, Chapter
40 Code of 1878. which provides that
the compensation in such cases shall
be ''not exceeding five per centu n on the
money actually paid into the Treasury"
So Mr.. Blair was paid by Auditor Allen
s., 900 for $375.75 worth of work. [House
Doc. No. page s.
"Another case was in the Circuit Court of Meek
lenburg county, court wholly outside of my
duties, and saved large claim for the State.'
So says the Attorney General. The
Large claim saved for the State in this
case and paid into the Treasury was 3d.
1910, and for that Charge" claim Auditor
Allen paid Attorney General Blair for
fees and expenses nearly one-third. or to
be exact, the enormous sum of 81 ,271 .25,
of which 81 600 was fee. House Doc.
No. page S. The Attorney General
goes on:
There was committee that investigated this
whole matter. for weeks, had all the evidence be
fGra them and there tWn rQDOrtS-a mai0rifV
and minority report, but the Democratic legisla
ture refused take any action the reports. and
the whole investigation fell to the ground as mis-
cradle failure 1t was originated by some Bourbon
lawyer who wanted my Office, aud who wanted me
removed so he could getit or to make come cam
palgn material for their party
The Democratic Legislature took what
was intended to be the most decided ac-
tion and passed bill to recover from any
State officer, by Withholding his salary,
money that he might have illegally draw
from the State Treasurer. Auditor Marye
withheld the salary in order to collect the
SIS Alp 81, which he deemed Attorney
General Blair.had illegally drawn from the
Treasury in fees, and which majority of
a special investigating committee of the
House had reported after Investigation to
be due. Mr.. Blair then took the case to the
Court of Appeals on q mandamus. The
usual three to two of that court decided in
favor of Mr.. Blair, on the ground that
the salary of constitutional officer could
not be legally withheld. AS for the
morality of taking the fees the opinion
bv7 1or
lit is we think, abundantly clear. from tn e re-
cord. that there can be no possible legal or mora
wrong in the acceptance OF these fees OF office By
either Attorney Field or Attorney General
Blair as they acere paid to them, and they accepted
them under claim of right, and urader the con-
structiOn and practice of the lao placed on the
statutes by the clerks of the courts the auditor of
Public Accounts, and the Treasurer of the State.
They all acted conscientiOusly lin what they be-
lieved to be the discharge OF official duty and
Legal right"
That Is to say, that the illegality and
immortality OF the transaction must be laid
to the charge of the court clerks, Auditor
Allen. and Treasurer Reveley who ought
to have known, and not to Attorney Gen
eral Blair, the law officer of the Common
wealth, who could not be SUI posed to
know. 1t may puzzle our readers why
Judge Fauntleroy in his opinion, and the
Attorney General in quoting it in his in
terview, should be SO particular in bring
ing in the name of Ex-AttOrney- General
Field, Mr.. Blair's Democratic predeces-
sor, who was not implicated in the suit be-
fore the court. Before the special CON-
mittee appointed by the House of Dele
gates to investigate Attorney General
Blair's illegal drafts on the Treasury, be
testified on November 18th, 1884, as fol-
lows:
"Gen Field had raised the question in the case
Of Thon VS.. the Commonwealth and waited the
result, but since my term OF Office begun. under
his construction Of the act he came to Richmond.
got the certificates of the Clerk the Court of Ap
peas and of the Circuit court OF this city and other
courts and drew from the Auditors ONCE fees that
he claimed that he had earned during his term OF
ofice.'
On the next day before the Committee
letter was read from Gen. Field saying:
SIN the winter of 1928, or perhaps in the spring
OF 1888. received from the present Attorney
k t OF 1ha me 1aat
Appeals in Thon vs.. the Commonwealth. to certain
fees which the Auditor [Allen would pay me upon
certificates from the clerks of the courts" [Gen.
Field saws he came to Richmond and collected the
fees butt II was neUer called Ito interpret the
decision of the court or 70 c0nstrue the lao of the
legislature in regard to the matter.'
Attorney General Blair is not the man
to be Attorney General of Virginia, and
the people at the polls in November will
register that opinion. He submits his in
terview to the voters, the VIND1CAToR
submits his record.