Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1885-06-05


ton that 1t was the authorized version of
the defence. 1t is not probable, however,
in case Mr.. Blair should be nominated for
Governor by the Republicans, or for any
other office, that either of these reports
will be allowed to sleep. Certainly the
Democratic press will find in them mine
of information which can be worked to
the enlightenment of their readers with
not less profit out of the minority report
than out of that of the majority. Our
contemporary will not have cause to COM
plain of the Democratic press not effectual-
ly exploiting both reports after Mr..
Blair's nomination.
We have read the decision of the Court
of Appeals delivered by Fauntleroy. j.,
but we do not see in it the same ''judici-
al vindication'' Of Mr.. Blair that our
contemporary sees. AS we understand 1t,
the gist of 1t, from legal point Of view, is
that the court decided. and correctly
decided, that the law as passed by the
legislature undertook to do what cannot
be done Observation-Disclosures con-
stitutional officers salary, to collect a
debt. From a moral point of view it
seems to hold that Mr.. Blair was right
because. as it assumes, he thought he was
right, and because if there was any fault
it lay at the door of the clerks who erti-
fed his account, the Auditor who directed
its payment, and the Treasurer who paid
1T. The court 7oowhere sad that the law
if,t 10,h hAt
Attorney General shall receive the sum OF
800 annually forihis services, and shall
not be entitled to any further compensation
therefor" had not been violated 10y Mr..
Biair's receiving $l7 .O40 for two years and
nine months services. Indeed it would
be hard to see how it could have SO held;
the law quoted not having been repealed or
amended since its passage. We give the
vindicatory clause of the Courts opinion,
| injected by Fauntleroy, j.. to couple an
other name with the plaintiffs:
1t is, we think, abundanty clear, from the
record, that there can be no possible legal or
moral wrong in the acceptance of these fees
| of Office by either Attorney General Field or
Attorney General Blair, as they aoere paid to
them, and they accepted them under a claim
of right, and under the construction and prac-
tice of the law placed on the statutes By the
clerks Of the courts, the Aatezitor Of Public Ac-
counts, and the Treasurer Of the State. They
all acted conscientiously in what they believ-
ed to be the discharge of official duty and le-
gal right.
The ''vlndication" of ex-Attorney Gen.
eral Field by FauntlerOy j., which ap-
pears rather superfuous, seeing that he
was not in the case at all is more, clearly
understood by paragraph contained in
the Majority report. On Nov. 18th At
torney General Blair testified before the
committee:
''Gen. Field had raised the question in the
case of Thon VS.. the Commonwealth and I
waited the result, but since my term of Office
begun, under has construction of the act he
came to Richmond, got the certificate of the
Clerk of the Court of Appeals and of the Cir
| cult court of this city and other courts, and
drew from the Auditors Office fees that he
claimed that he had earned during his term
of office"
On the next day before the Committee a
| letter was read from Gen. Field saying:
SIN the winter of 1928, or perhaps in the
spring of 1888, I received from the present
Attorney General [Blair], kind letter in
forming me that L was entitled under the de-
cision of the Court of Appeals in Thon VS..
the Commonwealth to certain fees which the
Auditor [Allenl, would pay me upon certif-
| loo h. a.
Field says he came to Richmond and collected
the fees, but 81 was meoer called on to inter-
pref the decision Of the court or to c01ast7a1e the
laao of the legislature in regard to the matter"
The italics and parentheses are ours.
AS Gen. Field was not party to the SUIT;
as he lad gone out of Office before the il
legal fees were drawn and was not an Off
Ger Of the State when the law before the
court was passed; as he drew no such fees
while ia Office, and as the fact of his hav-
ing drawn fees not contemplated by law
could not affect the case Of the present
Attorney General, the motive of Fauntle-
roy. j.. in coupling his name in the vindi-
cation can be readily inferred. After all
is said, whether by the Court of Appeals
or by committees, the cold fact remains
that the law of 1878 lanlitsng the Attorney
Generals compensation to So, 500 per an
mum has been violated by that officer re-
ceiving compensation at the rate OF 5000
a year. Whether the violation of that law
was by the Attorney General, the Audi
tor, or the Clerks of the Court. and
whether it was done through conscientious
monwealth should have its money again;
for, whatever legal quibles may make of it.
the money was paid out in violation of
the express intent and wording of the law
of 1878.