The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-02-28
"Upshur Approved IT,


Before the company was formed Mr..
Lanler submitted It's project and scheme
TO the chairman of this CommSs sion, stat
ms that II there was the slightest obJec
ton on the part OF any one of the COM
missIoners to his promoting and holding
stock in such an enterprise he would
drop 1t at once. The chairman gave the
enterprise his hearty approval. saying II
would be an institution that would aid
IN systemizing the work OF the commits
sion and would also relieve the commits
sion of n great deal OF its onerous labors.
and so convinced vas the chairman of It's
Innocence and usefulness that he sub
scribed to stock In the company. and is
ut this moment a stakeholder In II so
far AZ its records show.
Further when Mr. Lanier submitted
the matter to the chairman, he suggested
to him the proprtety OF also submitting
III 10 the other two commissioners but
the Innocence and utility OF the scheme
were so transparent to the chairman that
he advised Mr.. Lanier that this was un-
necessary.
Mr.. Lanier also submitted the schene
and plans for the organization OF the
company to the chief clerk and he also
gave 1t his unqualified approval.
TO send Mr. ianitr out into the world,
therefore. branded as having done some
thing improper. would be. In his opinion
AN act OF the arosscst Injustice to him.
But even though the case is to be
considered technically and solely upon the
commission In It's written memorandum.
calling for Mr.. Lanier's resignation. wiz
GfHSprl cJalpla differences between him
and the chief clerk-stil the differences
between the chief clerk and Mr.. Lanier
are as Is well known TO the commits
Sion. differences OF the chief clerks own
creation. wholly and entirely.
Mr. Lanier ~ in no way whatever re-
sponsible for them. and Ihsy are differ
MT Lanier In the efficient discharge OF
his duties In the Office OF the commission
for the reason that his duties are almost
entirely of n legal nature and practically
h. M
the chief clerk-all OF which IL well known
10 the chairman OF the commission under
l.anier performs his duties almost exclu-
sively. by reason of their semi judicial
and almost entirely legal character.
At the only hearing or investigation ever
held by the commission in regard 10 the
alleged trouble and tension existing be-
tween members OF the Office force the
only matters considered by the commits
sion as far as known TO Mr.. Lanler, who
appeared before the commission at their
verbal request, were matters relating 10
Mr.. Lanier's connection with the Virginia
Corporation Company. Incorporated. and
his absences from the Office as contained
and charged by the. chief clerk In type
No had fled with the commission against
MIR. Lanler When Mr.. Lanier appeared
before the. commission ut said investiga-
ton. he told them in response 10 a state
inen made by the chairman, that IL they
simply wished him 10 appear before them
rs a witness of the situation and condi-
ton. but, II they were to consider the
charges, which he was informed had
been made against him by the chief clerk,
then he would insist upon seeing a cory
OF the charges, and also. 1Ipon a formal
and public investigation of them at a
time to be fixed by the commission. and
also that he would insist upon the fullest
freest and most unrelenting investigation
of his conduct.
He was informed by the commission
that they would not consider any
charges made by the chief clerk against
him. and that they simply desired to look
into the situation informally.
Mr.. Lanter consented, and thereupon the
entire sitting was consumed In discussing
the matters raised by the charges afore-
said and in asking Mr.. Lanier questions
from and In reference to said charges
Mr. 1<nier has never se.n copy of
these charges. and considering that they
did not directly cause. the commission
to request his resignation. and desiring
to see them, that he might vindicate his
character from the calumnics and libels
sic en- F. hs mornE
the 18th of May. 1905, and asked the chair
man permission to look over the charges,
and lie was informed by the chairman
pected. and that. therefore, he had de-
stroyed the copy OF the charges, and had
directed Mr. Stuart and Mr.. Fairfax to do
The same. which they had done.
II the real reason of the call for the
resignation of Mr. Lanler is as stated in
the. memorandum embodying the Views
and wsihes of The commission and trans
mitted to him by the chairman. then he
has been condemned and punished for
reasons, of which lie had no previous no.
tice and without even the offer of an
opportunity to be heard in his own de-
Tense, and that, too. for another's mans
wrong on an ex parte statement Had
he been given an opportunity to be heard
on the subject-matter of the memorandum
he could have shown and proven his own
4 Innocence and blamelessness for the diff
ferences referred to in said memorandum
and could have fixed the responsibility
therefor upon the chief clerk, where it
rlghtfully and Justly belongs.
Under all these circumstances Mr., La
nier feels that the commission should, in
simple justice to him, recall it's demand
for his resignation.
All of which is resnectfully submitted
w. l.. 4ROYALL,
Counsel for a. S. Lanier
Richmond, Va, May II, 1905.
To Acknowledgement.
Richmond Nav o. 10o5