The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-11-26
SAYS REPORT do !.
STATE AN INJUSTICE
Commonwealth Never Sought, Says
Auditor Page, to Evade Payment on
Account OF Statute of Limitations.
NO SUCH LARGE LIABILITY.
instead of Ten Millions of Such Claims
As Canal Bonds Outstanding There
. Were But Half Million, Most Of
Which Have Long Been Settled.

Mr.. Page. second auditor of Virginia
yesterday made the following state
ment with reference to the report OF
the decision of the Circuit Court, OF
the city of Richmond, in the suit OF
"Stuart's executor against the Board
of Sinking Fund Commissioners OF
Virginia."
In the report in the morning pa
pers OF Judge SCOTS decision in the
suit OF 'Stuart's executor against the
Board of Sinking Fund Commissioners
of Virginia. and decided In favor OF
the defendants, l bee to call atten-
tion to statement which think does
the Commonwealth OF Virginia an in
justice. refer to the statement:
II is estimated that there is abou,
ten million dollars worth of bonds and
certificates in existence for which the
State went security many years ago
and that the decision of this
case for the plaintiff would have
thrown the State Treasury into diff
cult straits The precedent established
giving rise to claims on the balance
of the millions which have accumu-
lated against the State. etc.
As a matter of fact the claims sim
far to this amounted originally to
$780, 900. of which nearly the whole
amount was settled between the hold
ers OF the bonds and the Common
wealth many years ago. which settle
Bradley T. Johnson in 1877, who was
specially employed to represent the
Commonwealth in these matters.
And SO far as the liability OF the
Commonwealth Is concerned, as late
as 1903 the Commonwealth of vir-
ginia received of the United states
government of this issue of $4,000 OF
similar bonds. which were not in
cluded in the settlement mentioned
because they were held by the United
States government at the time.
And SO careful was the Legislature
to protect the credit Of the State from
any charge of repudiating her obii-
cations that In the law authorizing
this suit to be brought against the
Commonwealth which limited 1t &c
two years from the passage OF the act
II was expressly provided that the
Board OF Sinking Fund Commissioners
should not interpose the technical plea
of the Statute of Limitations. unless
in the Judgment Of the said board II
was proper and necessary to do &C
to protect the Commonwealth from the
payments of unjust and inequitabls
demands
have not yet seen the opinion OF
the learned Judge. who decided this
question. and am only writing this
letter to defend the good name of the
Commonwealth from the charge OF
having by pleading the statute of Linn
ftations saved herself from n ten mil
lion dollar liability. SO far from there
having been ten million OF such bonds
III appears that there were only three
hundred thousand ~-'aranteed by the
state under act OF arch !, 1s4T. and
that subsequently by the act of March
ll5. 1S4s, two hundred thousand were
guaranteed. Which first issue was in
voIved in the settlement already re-
ferred to and which last Issue was
duly paid by the canal company on
the 9Th day of August, 1871.