Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1900-03-09
WHOLESALE Undertaking.

The Highland Recorder in its last
issue says editorially:
A scrap OF paper, a mere statement
OF a conveyance Of about $4,000 acres
OF Big Survey land in Bath and High
land counties, to foreign land grabbers,
has, by a recent act of The Virginia
Legislature, been made an out and out
deed. thereby making a more perfect
title for the foreign la~nd-grabber as
against our citizens, the junior
grantees, who occupy the property
and have made it valuable by years OF
labor expended on it. In regard to the
act the Staunton SPECTATOR says. edi
torially: "If reports are true it is a
piece of as vicious legislation as has
been log rolled through the Legislature
of this state within the memory of
man.
In the case OF our representative,
Hon. Wm. McAllister, who has taken
a decided stand against his constitu-
ents in this matter of such vital i'm
portance to them, to favor the foreign
land grabber, is certainly a case with
out parallel and not heretofore known
to Virginia politics.
As the matter stood before this act,
the junior grantees possessed a title
that stood the test in the circuit court
Of Bath county and in the Supreme
court, as the Ease of Barley VS.. Byrd
will show. This case which was an
effort to dispossess John T. Byrd, who
has two grants in this survey, was de-
cided in Mr.. Byrd's favor in both
courts, the successful fight being made
by Hon. Charles 2. Jones, who by the
way, had as his associate counsel Hon.
VIM. McAllister. But the Legislature
has now given the foreign land-grab-
Der a new hold, and thelitigation that
will surely come OF it will not end in
years. We cannot see at all how it
wal possible for u representative to
have been found in this question only
on the side of his constituents.
Highland and Bath have become SO
much stirred owe this bill that the
clerk of Bath county, MI. F. A. La
Rue. in a lengthy history of the ase
published in the Bath Enterprise of
March list. says: mo bill has been
offered in the House of Delegates this
year which has so thoroughly aroused
the people of Bath county as the bill
offered by Hon. VIM. M. McAllister,
which provides for the r%ecordation of
certain certificates or memoranda
which were issued by the clerk of the
general court of Virginia" Again the
clerk Gays: "Quite a number of our
people are inclined to criticise the firm
of VIM. NJ. & j. T. McAllister for rep
resenting R. J. Thomas and others in
this suit. after having represented the
people in the former suit" but asks
that on this question judgment be sus-
pended, as Mr.. La Rue says he does not
believe the bill will affect the people of
Bath. There seems, however, to be a
different opinion prevailing. The peo-
pie of Bath and Highland do not be-
lieve that this legislation is for fun,
they believe the parties who inspired
it are seeking something, and that
something is the land; there can be no
other ultimate object. If then the
parties behind this legislation mean
anything they mean to try to get the
land, and if they get it or attempt to
get it, the people of Highland and Bath
are affected and deeply affected. See
ing this as they must, it is not sur
prising that the feeling is intense, and
will rrnxu opI mona on &c tho
matter further develops.