Martinsburg statesman-democrat. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1906-1921, 1913-09-26
L|LLY'S ANSWER
Attorney General Again Tells Why
State Should Not Pay Biddin-
gers Fees.

Inc iOlloNlng Is the answer OF At
torney General Lilly to the letters of
the prosecuting attorney of Kanawha
county, in regard to the Biddinger
claim of four thousand dollars. for
witness attendance in the bribery
cases recently tried at Webster
Springs: tt4E
Charleston. w Va. Sept 90
"Hon. T. C. Townsend,
Prosecuting Attorney,
echarleston, w. Va.
'Dear Sir s.
"Your favor of the seventeenth III.
slant to hand, and contents fully n1a
ted | also see the same in the state
press, Notwithstanding the fact thatI
in your former interview you stated
you did not seek nntoriety or news
paper controversy.
MAY l suggest that l think 1t
would be more becoming in officials
of the law. where there is a legal dis
agreement, to have such disagreement
settled in legal and orderly manner,
rather than descending into personal
fsies and newspape controversy,
which in no way can affect or adjust
such differences.
while / DO not now what the
Supreme court would decide in the
matter. have my convictions as to
the legality of the Biddinger claim,
and would cheerfully and willingly
submit to the courts decision, waeth-
err favorable or adverse to my con-
tention. VIII you kindly do likewise7
LAS to what | shall do in regard to
the prosecutions | beg to advise, as
heretofore stated to Mr.. Woddell in
my letter of May 2S, 1913, that
would have nothing whatever to do
with reference to the prosecutions,
shall still pursue that course. All
! have had to do with it is to say
officially, when officially asked, that
in my opinion, SIS day was not a
proper compensation. and that the
trial court abused its discretion,
through your influence, when il made
such allowance. 10 ,t Ird ra hf g..
Mr. Dyer clerk of the circuit court.
informs me that Mr.. Biddinger did
not attend over fiftyone days, which
would be SIS per day.
with reference TO obtaining Mr..
Biddnger's attendance at future
trials. may inquire why you did not
require him. as you had the legal
right to do, to give bond for his per
sonal appearance as a witness; and
may further ask, if your desires for
Mr.. Biddnger as witness in the
misdemeaAor cases % Smith and Van
Meter are genuine, why you did not
require Mr.. Biddinger who was in
consultation with you yesterday and
today to give bond for his personal
appearance as a witness in these
cases, as you have the right to do
under sections 1924 and 1926 of the
Code? 2rr
81 beg to further suggest that l am
reliably informed you told Reverend
Smith that you never expected to
try him; and also agreed in the Van
Meter case. as we'll as the Smith case,
that they would be continued from
time to time and finally nollied.
May | further inquire why it was
when Mr. VanMeter and Reverend
Smith we're in the custody of the
circuit of Webster county you did
not try their cases then. AS am
Informed counsel representing them
insisted. When you had Mr.. Biddin
ger. Mr.. VanMeter and Reverend
Smith at court, why did you not try
the cases?
81 have never objected and do not
object to the state paying MIR. Bid
dnger a proper compensation; and
although / think the amount in the
first instance is too much and the
precedent ought not to be established
to allow such fees to nonresident
witnesses, / have had no objections
and do not now have objections to
MIR. Blddinger being paid the same
price he charged Colonel Edwards,
to-wit, $25 per day, or the same price
he offered to testify for before the
Legislative Bribery Committee, towit,