Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1911-01-23
4 caRn FRom p w. MOORE.
20 the Editor Of the Alexandria Gazette


To the Editor of the Alexandria Gazette
Dear Sir-This is written in order to
correct some inaccuracies in your re-
port OF the proceedings in the Corpora
ton Court on Saturday in the receiver
ship case, so that my position may
not be misunderstood.
The Judge OF the court handed 10
those at the counsel table a draft OF
decree removing Mr.. John S. Barbour
from the receiyership, and that was
the occasion OF the remarks which l
made and which the stenographer. $ re-
mort enables me to summarize. l eS-
nIained that I did not appear IN any
canacity whatever except as the partner
AID friend of Mr.. Barbour.
/. stated that I made no objection
to Mr.. Barbour's removal but wished
to enter in respectful manner an IN
dignant protest against the recitals OF
the proposed decree, which were to the
effect that Mr.. Barbour had made
some concealment at the time the re-
Ownership was applied for. | pointed
out that the knowledge OF Judge Norton
at that time was co-extens!ve
with the knowledge possessed by
Mr.. Barbour, that there was no
more ground for charging The one,
than the other, with any improperly;
that each was beyond criticism, and
that if it was inconsistent for Mr.. Bar
bour, being counsel for Mr.. Rixey, to
net as receiver, it was equally inconsist-
ent for Judge Norton, being director,
to act as receiver. The stenographer's
report shows that towards the end OF
the argument the court said, speaking
of the draft OF the decree under discus
sion: "The decree OF the court was
presented this morning, and when 1t
was presented / glanced over it hur-
riedly, saw there we're somo reasons
further which impelled the court, and
I simply dictated some OF the other
reasons. AS to the form OF the decree,
I did not draw it nor did | see it until
then" was glad to think that the
document in question, which | was
forced to comment on in the measured
words which alone are proper IN the
court room, was not drawn by the Judge
and had only been glanced at hurrledly
by him before he handed it to counsel.
at the close OF the argument the Judge
said, as he had repeatedly said during
its progress, that he had no intention
OF rejecting on Mr.. Barbour, and he
finally entered decree containing no
such recitals as those in the draft re-
ferred to, but, on the contrary. express
ing the utmost confidence III Mr.. Bar
bour's integrity.
2. During the course OF my remarks
I said that inasnluch as MIR. Smith $
appointment was not yeta matter OF
record, the court, on reconsideration,
might think fit TO substitute for Mr..
Barbour some able and efficient Alex
andria business man, OF whom there
are SO many, or, il an attorney must
be selected, then some lawyer equal IN
experience to MIessrs Norton and Bar
bour. explained, however, that l had
nothing to say against MI. Smith, whom
I had known personally as young
LAWYER in the office OF Mr., G. G. Carlln
the presentrepresentatiye in Congress
from this distrist-and in connection
with cases in Fairfax county where he
was representing joint property inter
ests of his father and the Judge OF the
court.
s. said that it was not necessary for
me to commend Mr.. Barbour, and |
may be allowed to repeat that after an
intimacy with him extending over
manv years, I am certain one must
travel far to find man whose private
and professional life is cleaner. 1t
would be we'll for every community
and for the state if the conduct OF all
who are connected with the business OF
the profession in every relation were
regulated by the lofty ideal, and
standards which control bis.
I have said that the language OF the
decree that has been entered IS salts
factory to me. Mr.. Barbour did not re
quest that the judge appoint him re-
ceiyer, and he did not request that
be be retained. 1t is therefore need
less for me to say that | am not
calling in question either tho power
or the wisdom OF the Court in dis
placing him and appointing Mr.. Smith.
Nor am considering whether it might
not have been just as we'll to ask for his
resignation which could have been
quickly had instead of removing him.
But ] would be lacking in frankness
if I failed to say that the word
removed" as applied to a
receiver whom the court on
its own motion appointed, is at least
AN unfortunate use OF terms. So far
as the court is concerned, the incident
is closed. But I, OF course, wish it
understood that in this affair | am
thoroughly identified with Mr.. Bar.
bour. His action is set forth in detail
in 8 statement which I presented to the
court, and which has been mado part
OF the record. I approve his conduct
in every particular. 1t is the conduct
of high mined gentleman and an
admirable lawyer.
r. WALTON MOORE.
Fairfax, Va.