Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-03-21
The Error in the Appropriation Act.

In your issue of March 18th appears a
statement that a portion of the appro-
priation bill for the years l8SS-'S9, in
reference to the purchase of bonds by
any surplus in the Treasury, appeared in
the enrolled bill in language different
from that used in the engrOssed bill.
The Keeper of the Rolls (Nir. John Bell
Bigger denies that in the Dispatch OF
this the Goth instant: AS l am " the
prominent officer at the Capitol who
gave YOU the information l must beg
leave to explain and defend my state
ment:
Before undertaking that, let me say
that in what did | had no intention of
attacking Mr.. Bigger, but only meant to
let the public know that by mistake in
giving the dates 1886 and 1887 instead
of 1888 and 1889, the Commissioners of
the Sinking Fund would be unable to
execute the command OF the Legislature
10 buy Riddleberger bonds at the maxi
mum of $50, 900 per month out of any
surplus that might be in the Treasury
within the next two years.
As soon as be could get it, after the
adjournment of the Legislature, the Au-
ditor of Public Accounts had the appro-
priation act copied from the volume OF the
enrolled bills. In this copy he observed
that the act restricted the purchasers TO
the past two instead of the next two
years, which ruined the section. He
cent one of his clerks, Mr.. James ID.
Craig, an officer of established accu-
racy, fidelity, and intelligence, to COM
pare his copy with the original, which
he did and found it correct TO investit
gate the matter still further and for an
important public purpose Mr.. Craig was
then sent to examine the engrossed BILL
which had been sent to the printer. He
found the section OF the engrossed bill
which referred 10 the purchase of bonds,
and which was in manuscript family
crosslined. Surprising that this meant
cancellation, he looked for what had been
put in to substitute, and finding nothing,
and seeing that If the cancelled part
should be omitted the bill would be
wholly without that very important
clause, he was forced to conclude that it
had been decided to return il, and so he
put it in his copy.
This fact, thus ascertained, established
either variance in the two papers or
neglect OF duty in the Keeper of the
Rolls not furnishing a correct copy of
the law to the printer; and the officers
10 whom the facts were made known did
not then suppose that Mr.. Bigger had
failed in NO important duty, but that
there had been an oversight in one OF
his copying clerks. II now seems that
as soon as the publication appeared in
the Disp0tch OF the 18th instant the en-
crossed bill was Withdrawn from the
printer aud withheld until Mr. Bigger,
then at his home in the country, return
ed-Ithink on Sunday the 18th when, on
Monday morning the Goth. he, for the
first time, so Mr.. Goode. the printer,
states, inserted in the enrolled bill cut
from the act OF 1885, the section |
which now appears there In print in sub
stitution OF the section which Mr.. Craig !
found there in manuscript land which 4
appears IN the Journals OF tho Senate
and House OF Delegates) and exhibiting |
that TO the Commissioned of the Sinking
Fund, complained that his business had
been improperly interfered with and
misrepreseDted by man who did not
understand ii. and that this had put him
in bad light before the public.
Rather. ] think, II viii w plain 10 !