Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-09-16

Extravagant and unlawful as were
these expenditures, yet as the statute
annual appropriation bills) gives to the
Attorney-General 5000 per annum to
cover Different and all contingent and
travelling expenses, and as it seems to
leave this expenditure to the honesty OF
the Attorney General, the committee
did not pass upon the items of this &C
count. but simply allowed 5000 of the
s2,368.0l drawn in 1882, and all OF
that drawn in 1883 and 1884, as IN
neither year did the sum exceed 5000.
This brought the expense account from
e3,S90.92 down to s2,555.30.
THE REMEDY.
As Mr.. Blair had during his term of
two years and nine months Of service
drawn s5,4l2.S7 more than his lawful
salary and expenses, and indicated his
purpose to retain it, and had thus pro-
vided for his lawful salary IN adrance,
it seemed perfectly fair and right that
the State should pay him no more
salary until he should repay what he
so unlawfully withheld.
Therefore, upon the facts Of the case
being reported to the General Assem-
bly,, it passed law to provide for this
and all similar cases (Acts extra ses-
sion 1884, page 90) which required the
Auditor, upon being notified that any
officer unlawfully withheld money due
the State and which had been received
by him during his term Of office, to
suspend the payment of his salary until
the matter could be inquired into. The
officer had the right to file at once in
the Circuit Court OF Richmond city his
petition claiming his salary, to which
petition the Auditor was compelled i'm
mediately to make answer, and the
Court, without the delays incident to
formal trial, was to determine whether
the officer did unlawfully withhold mo-
ney Of the State. II he did, his salary
was to be applied to its payment. If
he did not, his salary was to be paid at
once.
TIE COMMITTEES REPORT.
Provision having thus been made for a
speedy trial in court Of Mr.. Blair's claims
to the money ne had drawn. the COM
mttee asked the Legislature simply to
print and pass by the report, and not
to forestall the action Of the court by
any expression of opinion on its part.
This the House Of Delegates did, re-
fusing the motion Of Republican mem
Der to lay the report on the table.
THE ACTION OF THE COURTS.
Mr.. Blair, unwilling to submit to the
test of court trial his right to the
money he had drawn, applied to the
Court Of Appeals for mandamus. the
issue upon which, as shown by the plead
ings, and as | am informed by the coun-
sci for the State, upon express agree
ment to that effect, did not, and could
not, have involved the question of fact
as to whether Mr.. Blair had or had not
improperly drawn money from the
State Treasury. This case, with a
syllabus accurately showing what was
decided by the court, is reported in the
Virginia Lar Journal for September,
1885, page 500. Such an issue, in
deed. upon maadGmus, cannot be
tried by the court, but must be tried by
jury. a Minors Inst. Pl., page 359.)
The only matter involved in the man.
damus, then, was the right Of the State
to apply the salary Of the Attorney
General to the payment Of the money
he had received during his term of
office, and which he refused to repay
to the State.
This was all that was or could have
been decided.
Two of the judges were for maintain
ing this right of the State under the law,
and three of them were for declaring it
unconstitutional, and it was so declared.
The legislative committee that re-
ported the bill had considered the ques-
ton and had found that the Supreme
Court of the United States had passed
on it.
An engineer Of the United States
army had received and failed to account
for some Government money. lie tried
to draw his salary, and the Auditor re-
fused it. lie applied to the Supreme
Court Gust as Mr.. Blair did for a man
damus, but the great Judge Story Us
Pet, page 370)-the whole Court con-
curring-said: Another point Is
whether the Treasury Department has
right to deduct the pay and emolu-
ments of the defendant as chief engi-
neer of the army by setting them off
against the balance reported against
him. In our judgment the point in
wolves no serious difficulty.
Ii is but the exercise Of the common
right which belongs to every creditor to
apply the unappropriated money of his
debtor in his hands in extinguishment
Of the debts due TO him."
This case was before the court in the
brief of counsel, but it is not noticed
in the opinion of the court.
Beyond this excuse for the commit
tees error l do not desire to discuss
the correctness of the conclusion of the
three judges.
AN OBITER DICTUM.
| have noticed that tUo out of five
Judges dissented from the conclusion
Of the court on the question Of the
right to apply the salary to the repay
ment Of the money by Mr.. Blair.
When one of the three read what is
called the opinion Of the court one more
Judge, concurring in the result, dis
sented from the opinion.
Thus Judge Fauntleroy stands with
one other judge only in all that is said
in that opinion, except barely what is
germane to the only issue tried and de-
cided. And even then he stands alone
as to the reasons for his opinion mot
being the reasons Of the COURT. II is
a good rule of our civilization Zone often
violated, however, not to criticise the
decisions Of courts. This rule does not
apply to the mere opinions of judge or
minority Of judges about matters not
involved in the issues tried.
Such an opinion has only the weight
that the learning, fairness, and regard
for truth of the Judge who wrote it en-
titles it to, independent of his position