Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1898-10-24

CIVIL War. Later on the Legislature
Of II passd another bill providing Tor
the payment Of these claims, appropri-
ating for the purpose $19.474.6S to be
disbursed conditional upon the approx
al of said claims by the United States
! government, through its Court of
Claims, in the District OF Columbia,
and emphatically providing that no
J claims should be paid until such ap
| prevail was forthcoming. The clerk of
the commission was paid $3l5 out OF
the above amount.
The Court Of Claims failed to approve
any of the applications, and the APP
preparation expired by limitation Even
unto this day has the Court of Claims
maintained the same attitude regarding
the said claims, and they are still held
up.
THE VITAL FEATURE
But in this time which interviewed,
at least one attorney, Judge J. NJ. Nc
Whorter, of Greenbrier county, was not
idle. On the contrary he secured the
list Of claimants, got himself retained
as counsel, and undertook to procure
the payment of the claims, for a con-
sideratdon-presumabl in the form Of
commission, the amount of which has
been variously stated as 20, rs and
SO 1-3 per cent of each claim. The
amount of the commission matters not
at all so far as the history OF these
claims goes. The fact of the commits
sion amounts to everything, for it is
reasonably certain that had no attor-
ney been retained on a contingency or
otherwise, the whole business would
have remained IN statu quo until the
end of recorded time, after which it
would have gone over under the four
year rule and then have been dismiss
ed from the docket.
AN ACCOMMODATING LNaGsLA-
TURE.
But it was not so to be- Judge Nc
Whorter had been retained to get that
money. 1t could not be gotten except
by special legislation. Special legisla-
ton was consequently the first thing
IN order, and Senate Bill No. 81 was
framed and passed, not so much TO ac-
eommcdate the claimants, they were
either dead, forgotten, or didn't count,
but to enable the attorney TO get his
fees. The proof OF this is found in the
fact that it did not provide for the dis
bursement OF the money through the
regular and proper channel CT the AL
dltor's office, but, cn the contrary, put
the money into the hands OF a private
individual, VITO happens, by curious
coincidence, to be the son Of the at
torney for the claimants.
Had the State disbul sed this money,
each claimant would have received in
full his share, and had he then desired
to make an attorney a present of a
third of it, he could have done so. 1t
would have been none CT the States
business, and, furthermore, had this
procedure been adopted, no attorney
gould have gotten Suing On that casn
until it passed into the hands for which
it was intended.
A PERTINENT ILLUSTRATION.
Every one will recall the case of the
appropriation made to pay the Ma
tional Guard Of this State for services
rendered during the strikes of 1898. An
effort was made TO disburse this APP
preparation through a private individ-
ual. but it did not succeed. The audi
tors Office, created for the purpose Of
collecting and discussing the money of
the State, handled the fund. The re-
suit was that very large proportion
OF that appropriation remains in the
treasury to-day drawing interest for the
State, ard likely to remain there. The
reason for this fact is that an astonish-
ing number of claimants failed to show
up. Some were dead. Some had re-
moved to foreign climes. Some had
too much money already. Some did
not want it, anyway. In all events, the
State reaped the benefit, as it should
have done.
If such thing could happen in a
case SO recent, how much more extern
sively can it happen after the lapse of
third Of a century. And this amount
of unclaimed money need never have
left the State repositories, and need
never have ceased bringing in interest
to the State and the people. Under the
provisions Of the bill, however, the
State was not permitted to disburse this
money, and no arrangement of any ma
ture whatever was made for the return
Of unclaimed money into the treasury.
THAT IS NOT BUSINESS.
"Oh, the disbursing agent will return
all money not paid cut to the State"
says one. Maybe ne will. No one
says that he will not. 1t is certainly
the only honorable and proper proceed
ure, but that is not business. Suppose
the money had been turned over so un-
conditionally TO less honest man than
the present agent, and he had chosen to
do as he pleased with it, what could the
State do? The agent is required to give
no bend. He is not even required to
make a report. So far as the bill goes,
he is at liberty TO do about as he
pleases. There are no limitations.
well, suppose such an agent should
misapproprlate the funds, he could be
prosecuted" declares another. Yes,
and suppose he did not have the pro-
perty or cash, could the State recover
one cent? Certainly not. No bond
was required. The State is absolutely
and entirely unprotected under this
law.
Furthermore, suppose that all the
money not claimed be returned, say in
three years, to the State the State will
have lost three wears interest on the