The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1914-06-03

had forbidden the further use of his name and
stationery in furtherng Mr.. Hayes private ven
ture.
Despite these statements. further letters OF
similar purport, written on the same paper ana
signed in the way. were later sent out To
local registrars
Thereupon it developed that the lists not
being collected for Mir Hayes but for Edward
Nkers. to whom Colonel James had requested
air, Hayes to give such assistance as he cOund.
1t then understood shat Mr.. Akers was
raging for the lists and would himself, rather
than Mr.. Hayes, utilize them in such manner as
he pleased,
Ii now appears that acknowledgements of
these lists have recently been sent out in the
name of Il. O. James, with promises that the
registrars will receive a remittance to cover
proper fees" for his services in this connec-
tIon" In at least one instance letter has been
sent out, demurring to the bill of registrar
and reading in part as follows; The law allows
the registrar for certifying such Il list TO the
clerk the fee of 3 cents fer evsry ten woros
If this IS satisfactory 10 you | VIII send you my
check within the next week ten days: other
wise. / will return same And this letter. 1t
must be born in mind. Is signed not by AR.
Hayes, nor by MIR. AkeFs. nor by Mr.. James IN
Ii private capacity, but ny "B o. James secre-
tary Of the Commonwealth
The News Leader has no desire to emhaFrass
Colonel James and certainly would not do him
Injustice IN any way. But with this array Of
Colonel James original statement that he had
nothing whatsoever to do with the matter, be
yond asking Mr. Hayes to assist Mr.. Akerst we
must inquire what mas Colonel James To DO with
the payment of the registrars IN his official
Ga pacig? II ne did not know that the lists
wefe being gathered why should he dispute
with registrar the amount of his bill or write
that he win send his check? NOT having any
use for the lists and not desiring them, why
should he be paying for them ,.
The most generous answer, OF course tS mat
Colonel James took this action ana personally
assumed responsibility because he found lhat
his Office had been misused and his name haa
been subscribed to correspondence he had never
-.aen. But the News Leader secs no reason Ter
the act and Justification for the manner u
It's performance.
II Colonel James did not know that his oame
Was being used and did not authorize t he
mas been the victim of technical forger II
tAe-ellst1l2s- -l-
requires HIM to assume liability for debts con-
trat5ted by the misuse Of his name? The mo-
tive that prompted Colonel James may be ad-
mirable; the act itself sets bad precedert and
is at variance with previous statements IN the
case--at variance with sound business sense.
Worse etiu WAS the method The letter tp the
registrar whose bill seemed excessive is written
the official stationery of the secretary of the
Commonwealth and IS signed. have noted,
not By b. O. James an individual, but hE =.
O. James secretary Of the Comnonv"alth-
What has the secretary of the Conmonwe-lth
to do with the payment Of men getting lists for
Edward Akers? And what has the legal fee for
registering names to do with arransement
someone tsriscri the
o. James?
More significant STILL 20 whom do tho lsts now
belong? If they collected not as first stated
Tor James NJ. Hayes. Jr and # they are not
being paid for-as later indicated--hg Edward
Akers whose are they? And II b. O. James
secretary Of the Commonwealth. protests a, bill