Year: 1860

For the Spectator.
To the Voters of the 1Ith Circuit.


Msssrs. Editors AS the Judicial canvass is
approaching its end, propose giving brief re-


view of the several principal arguments present
ed by both parties, and wish to call attention
most especially to those that have been left un-
answered by the opposition.


Never has there been, even in political war;
fare, more Infamous or reckless attempt to de-
ceive a confdiDg and unsuspecting people, than
that pursued by the advocates of Judge Thomp-
son. They have made assertions which they
knew to be untrue, for whose truth they them
selves would not personally vouch, and which
they have not proved and never can prove
They have asserted with all the brazen impu-
dence of those who deal in talsehood, (for they
knew there were those who would believe them,
because they confded in them not only as law
yers but as men, that the Office of Receiver and
Clerk were so nearly the same, that bond given
for one was valid for the liabilities of the other,
when they knew that this was not only in oppo-
sition to justice but to law. Every one who
knows anything about the duties of Receiver and
Clerk must know that they are as substantially
different as any Office in the land. The Clerk is
the Recorder, or may be termed the Secretary of
the Court. The Receiver receives the monies
or is Treasurer of the Court. What man, with
common sense, is not able to discern their diff
ference9 Who will say that bond given for
the Office of Clerk, in which the term Receiver
is not mentioned is also valid for the latter of
fee, though the powers of both be vested in the
same man2 No one but the reckless ~" who
would do anything or say anything to accom-
plish his ends. Did the Legislature think 80
when it passed the act compelling the Court to
take separate bond? Did the securities of the
Clerk ever dream of such thing, that when
they signed their names to a bond for Clerk, in
which nothing was mentioned Of Receiver they
were making themselves liable for the duties of
separate and distinct Office, more responsible
than that of Clerk2 1t would be singular if they
did. 1t would be absurd in US to presume so-
We are further told, with the most artless pre-
varication, that no lawyer has ever construed
the seventh section of the act of 80, as con-
strued it, and that John B. Baldwin and others
have confidently brought suit upon the bond
given under it. ~" does not believe a word of
this nor does he dare attempt to take that section
and publish it to the people, and expound it as
he believes it to be. There is nothing more
plain and nothing more commanding. And how
do the people know but what John B. Baldwin
and others may be "Z2" Being such, they
could do nothing less than assert this.


But only desiring to call this subject again to
the attention of the people, shall leave it here,
merely asking them what amount the county
was likely to loose upon the defaults of Receiv-
er, without bond and security and asserting the
additional fact that, upon the death of Mr.. Kin
ney, one OF the Banks of StauDton, q think the
CentraD, was appointed Receiver in his stead and
gave but one bond as he did, and the Receiver
ever since, has given no other bond. Besides
this the singular fact of Bank-a corporate
body-being made an officer of the Court, sup
&c, la1 in


"" has gone so far too in his machinations
and in his folly, as to publish pretended COM
munication, dated "Dora Ooalfeld," as simple as
the fool who fabricated it, and as dark and un-
meaning and groundless as the friend who sug-
gested it. But it is beneath the notice of any
sensible man, and | pass iG with the single re-
mark that he is certainly destitute of any more
puffs to give his friend or any more arguments
to offer 10 his favor, when he becomes so puer-
lie as to write and publish such an article He
had better be attempting to reconcile the people
to tho tyranny of Judge Thompson, in having
them run to Court day after day for nothing
while their work is standing idle and their bus
mess standing still.


Mr.. ~" knows better than to answer this
He knows that the people have long complained
of such despotism. He knows that they have
long complained of Judge Thompson's slow and
dilatory manner, especially at Staunton and e.
ven some of his very warmest friends must
now acknowledge this unanswerable and una
voidable fact. They confess it, but do not at
tempt to justify it.


Another attempt on the part OF Judge T's
friends is their cry of persecution. Since all
else fails, they turn to this. What folly! "Ju-
MUS" and "a Countryman" have written moth
ing against Judge T. but facts. They have
treated him as every one must treat public SER
want, when examining into his past public life.
They have not dealt in nicknames and SANDER
GUS epithets, which alone become the foes of
Mr.. Fultz. They have not revived petty gossip
and examined into the conduct of his own chil-
dren, in this campaign What matters it if Mr..
Fultz's own son did sign Judge T's ''call," was
he not perfectly innocent of the design of the o.
riginators of that scheme9 What matters it if
all the lawyers did sign that 'call," are they all
of the same character Does that argue that
they are all at present friends of Judge T.2-
How many are as hot-headed fools as ''Z."--
But grow lengthy and may yet write another
brief article. A CoUNTRYMAN.