Staunton spectator and vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1896-1916, 1906-03-09
Friday, March 9, 1906.
The CORPORATIONS COMMISSION
INVESTIGATION,

committee or the General Assem- Oily
has been of peculiar interest. That
there should have been any 1nvestiga'
ton was unfortunate, but that the in.
vestigation should have been necessary
to the vindication of one of the highest
official bodies in this commonwealth
was more than unfortunate. The
public asks what was the object of the
investigation Who had done any
thing to cause an investigation We
will try to.enlighten them as best we
can.
The Corporations Commission Is a
new body created by our new constltu.
ton and has only been in existence
about three years. Its members were
appointed by Gov. Montague, and con
sisted of the following gentlemen when
this trouble began. Judge Beverly T.
Crump of Richmond, President; Hen.
ry A. Stuart of Russell county, a
nephew of Gen. J. E. B. Stuart, and
Henry Fairfax, Esq, of Loudoun coun
ty. When they were appointed. every
body was delighted. 1t was univer
sally agreed that higher men could not
have been found.
Some time after they had been at
work, say about the beginning of last
year. two clerks one named A. 8
Lanier and another named Newly
were dismissed. Then q great row
began and for time the papers teem-
ed with charges and counter charges
between these clerks and another
clerk named John H. Upshnr who
made the affair public. The trouble
arose over the fact that compan y
had been chartered by the corpora
tion's commi ssion from which all char.
tiers now emanate known as the Vir-
ginia Corporations company and that
Judge Crump had bscome a stockhoId
er in tho company. This was then
seen to be indiscreet because of the
peculiar relations this company must
occupy to the Corporation commits
sion. We will not attempt to go into
the reasons why this was SO, but il
was SO, and is admittedly so now.
The object of this inves tigation was
by some thought to be to see why the
commission had so summary dis
missed two of its clerks, but this was
only an incident. Nobody cared for
that, they could dismiss and hire as
many clerks as they pleased. The
real object was to see whether the
members of the Corporations COM
mission, or any one of them had been
guilty OF improper conduct with reIa-
lions to the chartered company. 1t
developed that Judge Crump had as.
sisted in advising Lanier who got up
the company, how to proceed, and had
taken one share of stock in it at 800.
1t further developed that Lanier had
not approached the other members
Stuart and Fairfax to have them
take stock, because he was afraid to
do SO, In fact be concealed from them
the fact that Judge Crump was q
stakeholder.
Lanier said on the stand in sub
stance that be did not tell them. be.
cause they were so outraged at bis
tLanier's) having stock, he knew they
would be more so if they knew Judge
Crump had stock. So soon therefore
rs Stuart and Fairfax heard of LAM.
er's connection with the company they
said be must go, and he did go.
When Judge Crump was on the
stand, and we quote from the Rich
mond Times Dispatch of March 2.
Mr.. Byrd, chairman of the investig-
&ting committee ask ed him this ues-
tion:
with all the lights before you and
looking back in all that has happened
would you, if you had all this affair to
20 through with again, act in the
same manner"
Judge Crump after a moments
hesitation replied that he would, and
continuing said: If you knew as
much about this matter as / do, you
would probably understand it better.
Then Mr.. Byrd said:
IF there Is anything 1 do not know
L hope you will tell me-" But Judge
Crump said no more.
1t was expected of Judge Crump
that be would say that he regretted
taking the stock, that he admitted it
was a mistake and be was deeply
sorry. But no, he had no regrets, Ger.
talnly expressed none. He would do
1t all over again. His friends were
deeply grieved over this. No one
could read bis testimony without at
once concluding that he was in no
sense sorry and in no wise admitted
his mistake, nor could any one read
the question without seeing that it
referred to the WHOLE affair.
But the next day after he had talk
ed to friends, possibly after he saw
what be had said In cold type, after
he had dreamed over it and possibly
consulted counsel. he came back and
in q prepared statement, said he refer.
red to the dismissal of Lanier when
he said he would do it all over again,
but as to the taking of stock he was
sorry about that, that it was a grave
mistake, and be would not do that
over again.
No one can read Judge Crump's
statement in the first or second in
s'ance and not feel sorry for him. He
was the thing being investigated, it
was his conduct which brought about