The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-03-01


ceivihg thnt letter OF May Fad. judge
tCrump and I, feeling Tint the matter was
not cxnctly as clear Ms 1t might be re-
Eardlng the suggestions we had mntc to
Mr.. Upslinr. sent lin n letter OF tile
25th. dictated this letter, and when
Mr.. Upsl,,ir states that Mr.. Fairfax told
hin, TINT Judge Crinip had written the
ter. which was as follows:
Richmond. Mhy %. 1905.
Mr.. Join a. 1ipshur, Richmond. Va.
Dear Sir.-Rrferrlng to YOUR conlmu,li-
cation of May I'D. and to yotir supple
incr1tury- communication OF May Fad, we
wish to state that there seems to be ~
niisconccption on your part IN both of
these communications Of the exact fRcts
and circumstances referred TO. Your
first communications was evidently writ
ten under misrepresentation that we de-
sired you 10 mike some changes or nod
tications of your charges against ~. s..
%f.anier. Such was not the cnse. and We
note your statement In Your second conf
i1ltinicatlof that no such REQUEST was
made by 1Is. Thnt our view of the facts
and circumstances may be thoroughly
are as follows:
On the evening Of May 10Th we called
you into our office and informed you TINT
AIR. 1,oynll, claiming TO represent A.. s..
.Lanier az his counsel. had served n
paper upon tho members OF the COM
mission. In which lie demanded, OF re-
qucsted. n copy OF the charges preferred
by you rs clerl, against A. S. I.anior, as
.lrst assistant clerk.
We stated TO YOU that fnnsnuch as n
considerable portion of Your report OF
April nth was in tie nature of den,ln-
and mere expressions of opinions.
THAT 1t might be well that only such
part OF that report be furnished to Mr..
Royal as was In tho nature OF specific
charges. and stated further that Mr..
Royall had not called for n copy Of your
report. but had called for charges con
taincd therein. and for that reason there
no propriety in furnishing hin, any
t!.ins else.
1t was further stated TO you b. us that
if you preferred that the entire report
should be delivered TO Mr.. Royal that
your wishes in that regard should ne re-
spected, and that our suggestions were,
to some extent. prompted hy the consid-
Grafton that in the event OF litigation
between you and Mr.. Lanier, 1t would be
much better for YOU to stand IN tho
charges preferred against Lanlcr. which
charges. 1t seemed to us, so far as We
have investigated. YOU would be able to
sustain. We further stated that 1t was
Mt least bad policy to deliver to Mr..
Royal anything more than he had de-
manded.
BY way of illustration of our meaning.
Commissioner Stuart marked certalD pas
sages coming under the head of denun-
and expressions of opinion to
be cut out. and marked other port.S,s
which, as we thought. unnecessarily In
volved other employees of the office, who
,,n ~, frfo1 f. t,. t1,tc $40 ~ 49, - ~ z- l..
the suggestion that they be so modi-
fled as to these parties as not to bring
them into Major Lanier's case, 1t being
understood, of course. that these charges
We're duly considered against the parties
on their own account and were to be dealt
with accordingly.
In our reply of May 22d you have
a manifest misrepresentation q the
spirit and purport of our suggestions,
you have corrected to some extent
in your communication of May I'D. We
wish to say as to our7interview held with
us on May ed at noon, which YOU refer
TO in YOU communication of May 23d,
you are laboring under some misap-
prehenslon also as TO that conversation.
You will. we think, recall the fact that
We explained TO you fully that in any
communication that we might make n
to Mr.. Royals demand for the
charges, we would state that a report had
fbeen made by YOU, and that the charges
were a part of that report, and that there
could be no possible objection either from
your standpoint or from Major 1.anier's,
to the course which we suggested. since
1t would appear on he face of our COM
municatton that the charges were a part
of a report, which report We thought best
to present in its original form for the
reasons above stated.
1t Is proper to state that both OF the
conversation above referred to were held
at a time when we were uncertain as 20
what part of your report should be fur
nished Mr.. Royal. or. in fact, as 20
any of 1t should be furnished
him. and. before taking my action In the
matter, is seemed proper TO us that your
wishes should be consulted. in dealing
with a paper from YOU as clerk to us as
commissioners.
The whole object OF the two interviews,
as was stated to you several times, was
your report might be reduced to spe-
cifc charges, no charges to be omitted, in
order that We might deal with the exact
made to us by Mr.. Royal.
In view of all the facts and circum-
attending our interviews and your
communications relative thereto, we feel
that we should. as we now do, withdraw
all suggestions heretofore made in regard
to this matter.
Yours truly.
BEVERLY II. GREMP,
II. G.. STUART.
Mr.. Fairfax had returned when this
letter was written. 1t was submitted 10
him and he endorsed upon it that he
concnrred in the decision of tho com
mission. He then took The letter and de-
livcred it to Mr., Upslrur at his desk.
Referred to Acknowledgement
About this time II occurred to US that.
we had an encouragement and that we
ought to refer this question to him. Ac-
cordingly we submitted the whole matter
to Attorncy-Gsneral Anderson, who gave
as his opinion thai the communication
from Mr.. Upshnr WIS clearly n privileged
communication, and not n public record.
The letter of the Corporation Commits
sion to Acknowledgement Anderson and
his reply thereto haze already been
printed in The Tinics-Dispatch,
When VIC got this opinion" continued
Nf. Stuart, we felt that 1t would he
~ 49, ~ .-