Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-11-26
each other cannot understand. Ifth

each other / cannot understand. If the
decision Of the Court Of Appeals Is 10
decide the question as to whether Mr..
Wren deserves to be paid, it must also
decide the merits Of all the others en-
gsged in the case. And If by that de-
cision they are to deserve praise or not,
according as the case is decided, then
the Mayor is little hasty In the liberal
praise he bestowed upon all others en-
gagged in the case. Why should he
wish to judge Mr.. Wren by rule that
be does not adopt as to all the otbers9 7
submit that the rule is not right one,
nor its intended application just.
The Mayor states that the services
were voluntary" Mr.. Burton. OF
the Dispatch, in his letter to Mr..
Wren, published in that paper on No
vember 18th last, shows that Mr.. Wren
went to the Mayors Office at Mr.. Bur-
toms request, having been told that if
the city would not employ him the Dis
patch would. And that it was upon
Mr.. Burton's representations that the
Mayor authorized Mr.. Wren to take
part in working up the case. This
statement the Mayor in his card that
appeared in the Dispatch on the 18th
did not deny.
-. The Mayor says that Mr.. Wren's
services were "neither necessary nor
of beneficial results" 1t is true that
Captain Epps, Sergeant Hulce, and Ser,
geant Tomlinson told the Mayor before
he wrote his veto that they were of
opinion that the case could have been
managed without the aid Of detective.
But Notwithstanding the gentlemen's
opinions, is it for the Mayor to say now
the services were not necessary
Does it not strike every fair mind that
such statement sounds strange coming
from the man who authorized Mr..
Wren to work in the case? Is not that
discovery little late to be just?
Ought not the Mayor to have known in
the beginning whether there was any
necessity for Mr.. Wren's services?
Is it fair that the alleged lack Of ne
cessity should be found out after the
work has been done ? 1t can hardly be.
And if ito pay this claim to any de-
tective in this case seems to be grave
reflection on the police force as inco m
petent and unfit to do the duty for
which they are selected" it is well to
ask who is responsible for the "rehec-
tion." Common sense would say that
that man is responsible who authorized
Mr.. Wren to work in the case and told
him to look to the Council for payment.
That man is the Mayor.
The first statement as to the facts Of
the bill is an ingenious but not frank
one. lie says I" 1t is singular con-
trast that out Of the secret-service
fund ] paid the expenses Of from five
to seven men to various parts of the
State during the investigation Of the
case and hunting up evidence for the
trial at total expense Of about sl75,
while Mr.. Wren, in his bill for three
men (himself only a day or SOY, Mr..
Daniel Wren (only nine days., and Mr..
Nolan (forty-seven days, charged ex-
penses Of over $780,"
There is nothing " singular about
it except the way in which the Mayor
states it. AS the Mayor was so par
ticular in stating how many days each
Of Mr.. Wren's assistant were at work,
he might have been equally as commu-
nicative in stating how many days each
one of the " five to seven " were out.
In that way comparison might have
been made between the expenses of
two classes Of men. As | remember
two of the five to seven men" were
Captain Epps and Mr.. Robins, who
made the arrest. They left here on
one day and returned the next. Two
were Mr.. Robinson and Mr.. Lamkin,
who were in King William county or
King and Queen two or three days.
Sergeant Hulce was another. He went
to Bath county. lie was away four
days. Sergeant Tomlinson was the
other. lie was working with Mr..
Nolan about three weeks. Hence the
d" five to seven" men, taken as one
man, were away thirty-four days. Mr..
Wren's men, taken as one man, were
away fifty-eight days. OF the said
thirty-fouI days Sergeant Tomlinson
was away three fifths of that number,
during most of which time he was with
Mr.. Nolan. During that time, as Ser
geant TomlinsOn says, Mr.. Nolan bore
the greater part of the expense Of
hiring the vehicles needed by them.
Mr.. Nowlan was in the same part of
the country nearly four weeks after
Mr.. Tomlinson's return and bore the
entire expense. 1t is not true that
Sergeant Tomlinson was at any extra
expense. Mr.. Nolan was at the same
expense and for longer time.
The Mayor alleges that "Cluverius
was in the hands Of the officers before
Wren was even aware that Cluvrius
was suspicioned." 1t is strange that
the Mayor, who claims to have fairly
tried to ascertain the merits of Mr..
Wren's bill, should have made such a
The warrant was sworn out on We'd
nesday, March 18th. The arrest was
made that. night. On the day before
Mr.. Wren found the "torn note" at
the American Hotel, and on that very
day got Mr.. W. r. Quarles, of War
rem & Quarles, to read correctly the
name on the envelope The being able to
do so, owing to peculiar circumstances.
and was told by him that he was a
young lawyer living in King and Queen
county. The next morning, before the
warrant was sworn out, the Dispatch,
speaking Of this note, said: :" Here is
a clue that will lead to a disclosure of
the mystery that surrounds the fate of
Lillian Madison"
1t is fair to presume that the Mayor
did not know these facts, or else he
would not have made the statement.
But it should suggest to the Mayor that
he ought not to have believed that |
was so easily misled."
The Mayor states that not material
piece Of evidence was furnished by Mr..
Wren that would not have been fur
nished without his assistance. That is
an assertion that cannot be proved