Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1888-01-08
ACard from Colonel Runiu.
To the Editor Of the Dispatch:

TO me EdifOF o. me D4oPutcH'
Mr.. Royal appears in this mornings
Dispatch in reply to a communication
of mine in yesterdays Dispatch signed
xkE
Mr.. Royal decided that that article
was susceptible of a construction per-
sonally offensive to himself; and with
the right to demand my name, which
was with the editor, he says: "Reasona-
bic men would conclude that the writer
meant TO insinuate that | exercised some
sinister influence over one or more Of
the Judges of the United States Court. [
wish to say thst if any such insinuation
was intended, it is the insinuation OF
falsehoOd.
If instead of bringing what he con-
ceives to be q personal grievance into a
newspaper, Mr.. Royal had come, or
sent. and asked if / had intended any
such insnuation, / would have replied
promptly that had meant to inslnuate
nothing that in saying that MIR. Royal
had the ear of the court l meant to as
sert what | believed then, and DO still
believe. to be fact, demonstrated IN Mr..
ROYALS practice Mt the bar of the Fede-
raj court, in q number Of cases OF I'M
portant public character and interest ;
and gave as the reason for my belief
the fact that the law had been uniformly
perverted in Mr.. Royals behalf, rs be-
iieve it has been. But | had nothing TO
do with the motives of Mr.. Royal one
way or the other; and do not think my
language warrants any imputatlon upon
them.
As to what Mr.. Royal calls "the inn
pertinent reference 10 what his clients
had seen fit to contract to pay for his ser
vices in court" Ireply that Mr.. Royal
set the example in that matter eighteen
months ago. On the 23d Of July, 1886,
he inquired ia the Richmond Dispatch :
What the State did pay Messrs. Tucker
and Allen" (the counsel of the State in
certain suits prosecuted by Mr.. RoyalD.
"Bumor puts it high. Can you inform
me?" Subsequently, on July Both,
Mr.. Royal claims the right, as a
citizen, to inquire into this mat
ter as an expenditure Of public
money. But neither then nor now can
any difference be shown in principle be-
tween his inquiring how high fee had
secured the services of Messrs. Allen and
Tucker, and a similar inquiry on the
part of the public AS to how high a fec
had secured his with the bOndholders
Indeed, there was a special reason fOl
the Board of Indemnity to press Mr.
Royal on this head in this As he had
appeared to insinuate high fee, it was
proper to have shown, if they had chosen
TO do it. that the fee was low as con
trasted with his own fee for services IL
the same cases really less than one
tenth part.
But if there bad been such distinc-
ton then, Mr.. Royal has set still late
example for such a reference, and hat
given full warrant for 1t by his declara
ton in the Dispatch OF December Is
1887, THAT he was in receipt of very
liberal monthly payment" leave hin
TO show what IS the difference between
ga thousand dollars per month, as
said, and "a very liberal monthly pay
ment" and further to show why he shal
have the right to discuss other people
fees in the newspapers, and nobody bu
himself shall be permitted to speak o
his own in the same place.
1t is not pleasant to incur the displea
sure of Mr.. Royal or any other man
But when | am engaged in protecting
the interests of the state | shall do IN.
duty in the place / occupy, AS | under
stand it, with all my force. And / thinl
| know how to do it without infringing
upon the just personal rights OF any one
and without sacrificing decorum to zeal
FRANK G.. RUFFIN,