Peninsula enterprise. [volume] (Accomac, Va.) 1881-1965, 1905-06-24
rlontague AS Railroad Lawyer.

The Index-Appeal has never been of
those that condemned as contrary to
sound public policy, or as in any way
incompatible with the public service,
or as inconsistent with the highest
duties of citizenship, an attorneyship
for a railroad or other corporation
merely for the transaction of its legal
business and the protection of its legal
interests. Railroads and other corpo-
rations have rights under the law just
as individuals and private concerns
have, and lawyers are just as neces-
sary to them as other officials and
employees That is what lawyers are
for, and no more odium attaches to
this class of professional service than
to any other, though there has, from
time to time, been a senseless clamOr
against corporation lawyers as enc
mics of popular rights and as disqual-
flied to serve the people in executive,
legislative and judicial positions.
The friends of Mr.. Montague have
found a favorite mode of attack on
Senator Martin in the charge that he
was a corporation lawyer and they
have worked upon the prejudices of
the people to create the impression
that he is still in the interests and
under the influence and control of the
corporations, to the detriment of the
public welfare. No mode of political
attack, whether by imuendo or open
charge, could be more unworthy and
false. Prior to Senator Martins cleo
ton to the United States Senate he
was for number of years counsel for
the Chesapeake and Ohio railroad
company in four counties, viz: Abe
marie, Buckingham, Fluvanna and
Goochland, at a salary of 81 900 per
annum. He was only employed to look
after the legal business of the road in
that territory, and had nothing what
ever to do with matters pertaining to
Legislation, or anything else. During
that time he held no office that impos-
ed public duties upon him inconsistent
with his relations to the railroad SO
far from being the creature of the
railroad in his first candidacy for the
United States Senatorship, it is a fact
that every railroad president in Vir-
ginia opposed him then, and, so far
as we can learn, they are opposing
him now. Mr.. ingalls,, the President
of the Chesapeake q Ohio railroad,
was exceedingly active against him
in his first candidacy, and went so far
as to publish card in a Richmond
paper advocating the election of Gen
eral Lee. When Mr.. Martin was cleo
ted United States Senator, he severed
his connection with the Chesapeake
& Ohio railroad company, and has had
no relations with that corporation
since except to bring suits against it,
So much for Mr.. Martin as a corpora
ton lawyer.
Now let us enquire how Mr. Monta-
que stands in this respect? For a num-
ber of years he was attorney for the
Southern Railroad Company for the
city of Danville and county of Pittsyl- |
vania. That was proper enough while
he held no public office incompatible |
with that position. But on July 1, |
1898, he entered upon the discharge
of his duties as District Attorney of |
the United States for the Western Dis |
trict of Virginia. Did he follow Mr. |
Martins example and resign his at |
t0rneyship of the railroad company? |
Not much On the contrary. he con- |
tinued his relations with the Southern |
Railroad after it had become his duty |
as a Federal official to prosecute rail |
roads for all criminal violations of the |
Interstate Commerce and other FEEDER !
al laws, drawing a salary of s., 600 and |
from the Government and a |
salary and free passes from the rail |
rOad. These facts were conspicuously |
printed in the Danville Register, Mr.. |
Montague's home paper, on February |
10, 1905. In all this time they have not |
been denied, and we do not believe |
that they will be denied. This state of |
things went on for more than four |
years, or until August II, 1897, when |
Mr.. Montague was nominated by the |
Democratic Convention, at Roanoke, |
for Attorney-General of Virginia The |
load was too heavy to go before the /
people with, and it was then-on the
very day of his nomination, we be-
lieve-that Mr. Montague did what he
should have done more than four
years before.
Here is the deadly parallel of the
two mems records! The facts are
matters of record that are easy of ac-
cess, and may be refuted if not accu-
rately stated here. We challenge re-
of them.
On comparison of these records,
the fair and impartial voters of Vir-
ginia can decide for themselves which
candidate has the more creditable re-
oord-the one that resigned as a cor
DoratiOn attorney when his public du-
lies became incompatible with that po-
'ition, or the one that held on in def
lnce of such incompatibility. II
Anyhow, let us have fair play! II