The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-04-07
". But how many men are inter
ested in these fashion details?
Come ii and see the real stuff.

I.l!EZcZ6IHHI4.&lG]
$3.50 -! z3z{ 8 ,2z ~: ]: e:
may be objected tint an indictment
found by grand jurycannot DO changed
In form or In substance by tho trial
the findings OF fact by q master in
chancery. then 1t may be objected that
such, findings have the warrant Of express
statutory authority to entitle them to
consideration by the chancellor. a court
OF law has no Such statutory authority,
and for that reason 1t cannot ascertain,
through a master the facts on which It's
erni Assemblysof Virginia. for like rea-
son, cannot render "a Judgment Of re-.
lnovnl from office, on facts ascertaiEed
through the House & of Delegates -. y. or
through a committee ofethat house. me
utmost It. could have done was TO nave
nscertdined4 the facts on which Its tina!
Judgment Yof removal S. or. non-remo oval
might be based, through a joint commit
tee Of both houses, but, even Tor his,
tho G General Assembly Of Virginia mas
made no provision for carrying irto effect
tho article OF tho Constitution.
"Thc causes for his removal, OF which
n copy has been served ,lupbns me by the
only differ essentially from the charges
which were investigated by the commit
Ftee OF the House. but they are wholly
,lnsustained by tho ievidence laid before
that committee. This illSappear ny an
examination of that evidence. II ne flfst
cause stated In the copy served on me
cmbodles two distinct matters, uncon-
nected with each other, and each equally
without evidence to support IT. ~ 8 Is,
< u) THAT "connlved at tho illicit SAFE
az liouor by s. a. Day In the Amherst
courthouse maglsterial districts of the
said county, where the local op ton law
was IN force. and did Wrongfulfy reneW
$. Days druggist retail license trr t .nl
salo Of liquor III said district VIII, {ru!l
knowledge that the said Day had been
Sllabitually selling liquor In said district
in violation Of law - n a.
Et8(o) That I 'did. by giving mi slea ding IN
structions to the grand jury VINO were
tinuuiring into the alleged Illicit sale Of
LIQUOR by said s. A.. Day. prevent the find
ing Of an Indictment against SAID ! Day
for Illicit selling Of liquor"
In support Of the first charge, the prin-
clpal witness was Mr. Thomas Whitehead,
who had been COUNSEL for the ianti-saloon
people who We're opposing tho granting
Of the license. AS .to$each6o mr. " hite-
heads statements Of fact hej, was, d1reet,
" contradlcted by Mr.. ~ Payne, who
' 4. F 1T
Pages, 27l, 600, CTS. tt.3
CONSTRUCTION OF Law.
The question depended mainly ION the
construction to be placed on what IS
known as the Ware Act" (Acts7 1S99-19O0,
page 734). Any intelligent lawyer on
looking at this act, will see that Its con-
struction is very doubtful. IS title does
not embrace or apparently contemplate
the selling of liquor by retail. 8t1phe sec
ton Jl6 OF tho revenue acts manifestly llas
no relation to the sale Of liquor but ap-
plies solely to rectners.i My judgment
upon 1t was, III the exercise OF my fncul-
ties. III TO wise controlled by the person
applying for license. You Will5llook ~
vain through the evidence for the testl-
mony OF a single witness who states any
| fact that can warrant the opinion that
/ was "conniving' at tho illicit sale Of
| liquor. Mr. Whitehead states no such
| fact, but relies upor. his opinion that
I5what he believed to exist as a. fact, as
the Judge. should have known and rocos'
qucstionSas to my relations with MI. Day
| Mr.. Whitehead replied:
IT can't say that because my relations
| with Mr.. Day are Just good morning,
and there we go gYouIwillY have TO prove
that by people living at Amherst Court
house: I don't know It," Page GO. record
| For Mr.. Whitehcad's testimony soc
| pages 1912 and 370-374, s
The testimony of the other witnesses
! rs to the sale of liquor In Amherst dis
trlct, relates to specific Incidents, as foi
instance, that related by Marcellus Rose
(colored), page 800, Of his getting whlskoS
| from S. A. Day and taking 1t IN n jut
to my house. which could not 20 con
/ sidered by tho committee under inc ap
thority of the House, rs itsFwas peforf
my election rs Judge; but 1t is proven BY
| DR.. ". a. Richeson, (page ESD and by Q
/ f., Flemming (page ESD that TINS Wa!
| dore by DIR, I1lcheson and absolutely wlth
out my knowledge, Tho other incident
i testified to by John S. Sandldge (nnd u
! A. Burke and John \, Burke) Of his bring
| ing whskey to my office Is shown by tn
| deposition which he was then engaged u
taking In my Office, TO have occurred
4 year or moro before my election rs judge
y and hence could not be considered by thu
Z committee. While these, three witnesses
the fall of 1900 and by their test!mon,
nut It within the scope of the inquiry
but fortunately ! found and produced tn
! depositions. See the record which con
trndlcts these witnesses. and shows tina
this occurred In November. 1898. before
was elected judge. and Is 1t possible tina
the General Assembly will find me gull
~ Of this charge on such testimony?
! OF. course, 1t Is within tho powers g
the triers Of the case to say that the
will not believe my testimony. or that G
my witnesses, or Of official papers wh'c
7 produced and which fixed dates an
II facts, and thus by such exclusion reach
ed the conclusion that am guilty nc
of the facts charged and proven, but c
\ all other facts of which may be eve
J, suep9'N NO CONNECTION
The testimony OF no one witness or {
} several combined can be pointed to While
\ even tends to connect me with any lllic
. ssale of whiskey by Mr., Day. My actlo
) as a Judge In granting Mr., Day licens
TO sell liquor was the result OF my bes
judgment, wholly unirfluensed by othe
Considerations than those which the la'
and the evidence suggested.
n Az 10 charge 10 the grand jury.
Persons appeared on the witness-s'an
4 ana undertook TO repeat from their ow
recolections verbal response made b
III - 4, (, e.llestinn andrcSsed 10 me Mhll