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

IT
man from the Chesapeake and Ohio Rail-
way, and I authorized him to secure his
services. Mr. Upshur attached too much
importance to the purely clerical and sta
tistlca work and working on reports of
statistical nature, rather than on prac-
zeal and Important subjects.
At Christmas. 1904, again asked him
FOR the analyses. and found that only n
few papers had been prepared. a new
year was near at hand. and felt that
the work must be done. l told my ASSOC
ciates that l must have a clerk TO take
charge OF the rates. and that the work
of the commission must be divided. My
associates agreed with me. but were slow
10 act. Finally Judge Crump wrote the
report ("statement') which created n
charter bureau, with Lanier, Tyler and
Newly under Judge Crump. and a rate
department. under me. The tax depart
ment, OF which Mr.. Fairfax had charge,
was unchanged. l want 1t to be distinct
~ understood that the division OF work
as outlined by me, WAS suggested early
Ia 1904 and completed early in 1905.
Could Not Employ Both.
In order to accomplish this change. we
determined to dispense with the services
OF Captain Barrow. who I will say. had
been valuable man TO the commission,
and employ a rate clerk in his place,
the contingent fund being so small that
we could not employ both.
When Mr.. Upshur learned of this pro-
posed change he said he could not do the
work of the office without Captain Bar
row. and so l told him to keep Captain
Barrow and that / would employ u
rate clerk and pay him out OF my own
pocket did not employ rate expert"
as has been stated. for anyone who is
familiar with railroads knows that the
salary OF such man is more than the
entire contingent fund of the commission,
with the salaries Of all three commission
ers added. / employed Mr.. r. T. Wilson
and paid him 5la) n month for felt that
the work must be done.
Later Mr.. Fairfax insisted upon pay
ing half of this expense, which we bore
until Mr.. Wilson became first assistant
clerk. some five or six months later.
go into these details because II was
at my preremptory demand that the
Statement was issued and the changes
made.
on the night OF April II. 1905. founh
a paper enclosed In an envelope bearing
the name of the State Corporation Com
mission, at my residence. did not open
the paper that night. The next morning
found that the envelope contained the
charges made by Mr.. Upshur ! had to
leave Richmond the next day to keep an
important engagement, and so the
charges were not considered at once. l
returned seven days later. but Mr.. Fair
fax was then away and so 1t was not
until the 9Th OF April that we called
Mr. upshur into the Office to discuss tho
matter with him.
Apparently Satisfied.
We told Mr.. Upshur that we proposed
to go into an investigation of the charges.
do not rccollect what he said but ! do
rccollect that hc seemed to be satisfied
with the position we took in the matter.
When Major Lanier came into the Office.
as we'll as ! can recollect, Judge CrumpA
said to him: Major. you will recall that
You spoke to me about certain charges
that would be made. Mr.. upshur has
now made them
File was asked n number OF questions
regarding the charges and Judge Crump
and l cross-questloned him.
He admitted many OF the charges in
substance. saying that no did have two
young men of the Office in his pay; that
he had gotten companies to reduce their
capital and so cut off state revenues.
Some of the charges he admitted in
effect some In modified form and oneBhes
denied, bur it developed that In tho mat
ter he denied there was no charge.
After he went out, said that ! was
,,nnecessnrN to call ,dny witnesses, for
Major Lnnier's own statements had shown
that he must hcdsmissed.
My two associates agreed with me-
l turned to Judge Crulnp and said that
MS Major Lanier was in his Department.,
and as he (Crump) knew him Qanicr)
better than we did, we would leave the
matter OF his resignation in his hands,
but added, ''At all events he must 60
Wo decided that it was best Tor the
office to dismiss Newly. but at inc re-
quest of one of the commissioners we
suspended action In the case or Tyler
who seemed to appreciate his mistake
and who had enjoyed n fine record.
On May I'd Mr.. Upshur requested mat
we suspend action. without giving any
reason. We did suspend action until
May 9TH and on ndviecs from Mr., Tn
slilr, MAILING further charges, Judge
Crnmp wrote Major I.anler on May 18th
n letter asking for his resignation, and
bnsing the request on Tie ground Of irroc-
onsinble differences between the chief
cleric ttIpshur) and f.anier, Here Mr.,
stuart went into discussion Of the let
teE)
Mr.. Stewart Questioned.
BY Mi, Byrd.
CUES. Was tho rcnl reason given IN that
letter for tho Dismissal of l.anier?
Ans Yes, 4 Very good ard sufficient,