Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1909-12-11
Judge huIlen's Final Reply in the
Tarttc White Matter.

Petersburg. Va. Dec. 4, 1903.
Editor of the Index-Appeal.
Since my return to the city. after
an absence OF over a week, I have
been seriously considering the ad-
visibility OF noticing the communi-
cation OF Mr.. Z. II. Mann, that ar
peared in your issue OF the oath
ultimo. When, at your suggestion,
/ submitted a statement for publi-
cation. my endeavor was to express
myself in such a dispassionate man
uer as 20 give offense to no one. II
seems IL has aroused the bitter re.
sentiment OF Mr.. Mann. as Is evil
dent from his s.o-called reply. I
refrainej from going into print un-
I'll called upon so TO do by your edi-
torial OF the 18th ultimo. IL was
not my purpose to Attack any one
In view OF the state OF the public
mind as TO some OF my official acts
you thought l should speak. II was
In deference 10 your Judgment that
1 did so. IL was necessary for me
20 give the reasons for my action.
Your editorial doubtless was
prompted by what appeared in your
issue OF the 14th ultimO as 20 what
was done In Court the day before
with reference to setting aside the
verdict In Joseph Whites case. II
appears from his communication OF
the gath ultimo that Mr. Mann's
recollection as 20 what occurred in
bile on their systems and comforts
inherent from mine as given in my
communication Of the 21st uItimg
IL Is, / take IL, a mere matter OF
recollection and immaterial which Is
correct Besides Mr.. Mann and M
self Mr.. Robert G. Bass and four ~
whites attorneys were present. The
recollection OF three OF these attor.
neys accOrds with mine. excepf that
one OF them could not rememb-r
whether the Court stated IL would
set aside every verdict imposing a
JAN sentence before or after the
commemorative Attorney gave no.
tice he would press for a re-trial
every time q verdict was set aside
whites other attorney that was pres.
ent is out OF the city, but I believe be
would corrOborate his aseociatas
Inc Court certainly did not intend
70 say the "Anti-Tartte faction bo6
been in fault throughout the whole
controversy" which arose at n bnsi-
ness meeting of Harrison street
(colored) Baptist Church. held Jpne
"a, 1907, at which certain menobar-
or this faction we're expelled. FOR
the Court by its decree annulIed thai
action Of that meeting. II aIso
closed the church from August 10
december, Notwithstanding the
Iartte faction was in possession
me Commonwealth Attornev
cannot say / have ever endeavoreJ
TO have him bliniIy obey INV svo.
Eesuon as 10 his official acfs No
Judge can be more careful tbo,
nave been to respect the prerogatiy,-.
or officials under him. No clash
II clash there has been. ever oc'
Cured between me and the Com.
monwealth,s Attorney until recenf.
~. When, in January, 1908 no
declined TO enter a noue nrosao,,,
IN Iartte's case for an alleged as
sault upon one Mason. tnaf case u,os
tried as soon as possible. and tho
verdict or the jury not disturbed
30 Tar as ] know cordial relattons
continued until last March when
must confess they became sorneuhat
strained. He had the RIGHT IN re.
fuse to nolle prnsedui the Tariff
(Mason) case. While I differed ANA
still difer with him. as TO the wis.
dom OF his course, nothing was ever
said or done by me to embarrass him
in the further prosecution of that
case. He shall continue to carry so
rar as am concerned. "his sover-
eignty under his own hat" Judeos
must make, and this Judge will con-
tinue to make suggestions to his
Commonwealth's Attorney: but he
has never attempted or will he ever
attempt, to make Of that official
mere "automaton Nor will this
Judge insist that that official
follow any precedent of this Judge
when he was Commonwealth At.
torney. In deferring TO the twice ex.
pressed opinion OF the late lamented
judge Bernard in the case cited bv
me In my communication OF the 21st
uitimo. was following what I had
supposed wss the invariabie prac-
tice under similar circumstances. II
is true the poor fellow whom /