Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1886-07-31
The second Auditor 10 Mr.. Royal,.

In his reply to the explanation gayc
Mr.. Royal on Thursday last as to the
fees Of Messrs. Tucker and Allen in the
Dulaney case, that gentleman asks
one question further: Does he ~
mean to say that Mr. Tucker has as
yet been paid nothing out Of the Treas
ury?" reply that Mr.. Tucker has
not been paid, and has not asked for
one cent out of the Treasury. If the
Legislature shall choose to assume the
liability incurred by the individuals OF
the Board of Indemnity in this case she
can do it, and presume she will If Pc
titioned thereto, as she will hardly re-
fuse to refund money honestly spent in
her behalf by her public servants, es-
pecially when the expenditure secures
such a result as was attained in the
late suit.
Mr. Royals claim that he has right
to know exactly what was paid Messrs.
Allen and Tucker by the State makes
point that is reserved, as the lawyers
say; though l will not argue it until it
is formally made. The Board of In
demnity is responsible to the people
through the Legislature, but it cannot
admit the right Of every individual to
demand access to its books and papers.
Logically, that would authorize Mr..
Roy all or any other agent of the bond
holders to demand any other informa-
ton he might want to be used if thought
proper against the State, as he thought
to do in the case Of these fees.
1t might authorize Mr.. Royal to de-
mand an answer to his question "why
the Board does not force the number OF
county treasures who frankly acknow-
ledge that they will not levy, to do SC"
and thus, even if the fact were so, 10
compel the Board to disclose to a law
yer representing the enemies of the
State the policy it may think proper TO
pursue.
Mr.. Royal has favored the public
with the information that Mr.. Robert
Neville, who had been levied on in the
county OF James City for rendering his
taxes in coupons and refusing to com.
ply with the law Of the State in that
regard, chad notified all persons that
be would treat every bidder as CO.
trespasser with the treasurer, aud no
one would bid for the stock, aud there
was no SALE" Perhaps it will be in
siructive to add TO Mr.. Royals news
the facts that Neville is an Englishman
and brother.in.law Of Mr.. Dulaney.
Are they hunting in couples?
With Difference, do not think mis-
understood Mr. Royals speech in re-
gard to Mr.. Dulaney. | say He
avowed before the jury in the Dnlansy
case that be had urged Dulaney to keep
bis half Of the damages, $4,000, as
he meant 10 keep his" Tie says: 81
had therefore written him, urging him
not to refuse any money that be might
recover, but to have half and give me
the other half" Where is the differ
ence?
"Great Stress" says Mr.. Royal,
had been laid on the fact that Mr..
Dulaney is q rich man, and il had been
argued that here was rich man trying
to get richer at the expense Of his
State" That argument was not made
before the jury nor was any such
point made in the testimony. Outside
Of the court it has been said, and truly,
that Mr.. Dulaney was rich man pay
ing his taxes in medium that a poor
man cannot use; and the act has been
censured, as | think it ought to be aud
will be. FRANK q. RUFFIy.