Taliaferro, Andrew J. Taylor, William Taylor, Trout, VanLear, George Walker, Joseph Walker, Wallace, Walsh, Waring, Smith J. R. White, Thomas M. White, and Wright-71.

Mr. ROBINSON moved to amend by inserting as an independent clause, to come in after the tenth clause-

"That the Richmond and Alleghany railroad is hereby required to pro-rate on equal terms and at the same rate per mile as on their road with all railroads running into Richmond."

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. ATTKISSON moved to amend by inserting in the eighth line in the sixth clause, before the word "water" the word "present"; which was agreed to.

Mr. HARVIE moved to amend by inserting at the end of the first section the following:

"The Richmond and Alleghany railroad company shall have no rights hereunder to build any dams in James river not already located, nor shall it have any right to charge tolls upon the navigation of any parts of said river not occupied by the present structures of the James river and Kanawha company."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. DANCE moved to amend by inserting at the end of the sixth clause of the first section the words "or to prevent the navigation of the same."

Pending its consideration, Mr. ASHTON demanded the previous question, and the question being "Shall the main question be now put?"-was put and decided in the negative.

Mr. GRAVES demanded the pending question; which was ordered. The amendment was rejected.

Mr. FOWLER moved to insert as an independent clause after the tenth, the following:

"In any mortgage or deed of trust which may hereafter be executed by said Richmond and Alleghany railroad on its works and property, at least one of the trustees shall at all times be a resident of the state of Virginia."

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. FOWLER moved to insert at end of the sixth section the following words: "Any provision in the general railroad law of the state. notwithstanding"; which was agreed to.

Mr. WALKER of Chesterfield moved to amend by inserting as an independent clause, after the eleventh, the following:

66

"In view of the necessity of direct and convenient communication of the peoples of the cities of Richmond and Manchester, and to afford commercial facilities for the same, it is required of the Richmond and Alleghany railroad company that eighth and ninth streets of the city of Richmond be opened across the present basin and canal of the James river and Kanawha canal, either by a bridge or earth filling, or both, and this requirement shall be complied with at a time not subseqent to the running of trains upon their line of railway."

Pending its consideration, Mr. STEVENS moved to postpone the further consideratien of the special order until 11 o'clock to-morrow. Mr. JOHNSTON of Giles moved to amend by inserting 12 o'clock; which was agreed to.

The motion as amended was agreed to..

On motion of Mr. TALIAFERRO of Norfolk city, the House adjourned untill to-morrow at 11 o'clock A. M.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1879.

The Journal was read by the clerk.

A communication from the Senate by their clerk, was read as follows:

In Senate, February 5, 1879.

The Senate have passed House bills entitled an act for the protection of sheep in the county of Spotsylvania, No. 75; an act for the protection of sheep in the county of Bedford, No. 85; and an act to authorize W. L. Cook to erect a wharf upon his land on York river, No. 129.

They have rejected House bills entitled an act making persons charged with criminal offences under the tenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth sections of chapter 2 of an act approved March 14, 1878, competent witnesses in their own behalf, No. 33; and an act to provide a fence law for the county of Loudoun, and to repeal an act entitled an act relating to fences, and for the protection of crops, approved January 26, 1866, in so far as it applies to the county of Loudoun, and to amend and re-enact the fourth, fifth and seventh sections of an act approved February 25, 1878, No. 50.

And they have passed bills entitled an act to amend and re-enact section 62, chapter 34 of the Code of 1873, in reference to licensing physicians, surgeons and dentists, No. 90; and an act to amend and re-enact the 68th section of an act for the assessment of taxes on persons, property, income, licenses, &c., and imposing taxes thereon for the support of the government and free schools, and to pay the interest on the public debt, approved March 27, 1876, No. 116.

In which bills they respectfully request the concurrence of the House of Delegates.

Nos. 90 and 116. Senate bills were read twice and referred to the committee on finance.

No. 110. Senate bill entitled an act providing for the rebinding of books of record, was reported back from the committee for courts of justice, with the recommendation that the House agree to the substitute.

No. 213. House bill to authorize supervisors to levy taxes on railroads in certain cases for county purposes, heretofore recommitted to the committee on roads and internal navigation, was reported back, with a recommendation that it do not pass.

No. 229. Honse bill to empower the eighth Columbia Baptist church in the county of Fairfax to sell and convey church property, reported from the committee for courts of justice, was read a first time.

The following House bills, reported from the committee on propositions and grievances, were read a first time:

No. 230. IIouse bill to authorize the trustees of Portsmouth naval lodge No. 100 and Mount Horeb royal arch chapter No. 11 to sell their real estate and subscribe to the Masonic building association of Portsmouth.

No. 231. House bill to incorporate the Masonic building association of Portsmouth.

The following House bills, reported from the committee on roads and internal navigation, were read a first time:

No. 232. House bill to amend and re-enact the 7th section of chapter 61, Code of 1873, in relation to turnpikes, as amended and reenacted by an act approved February 23, 1875, entitled an act to amend and re-enact the 7th section of chapter 61, Code of 1873, in relation to turnpikes.

N. 233. House bill to amend and re-enact sections 23 and 24, chapter 64, Code of 1873, in relation to ferries.

No. 234. House bill to amend and re-enact section 24 of chapter 61 of the Code of 1873, in relation to works of internal improvement. The following House bills, reported from the committee on counties, cities and towns, were read a first time:

No. 235. House bill to amend and re-enact the 3d, 4th, 5th and 6th sections of an act entitled an act to incorporate the town of Falls Church, in the county of Fairfax, approved March 30th, 1875.

No. 236. House bill to incorporate the town of Bangs, in Montgomery county.

The following reports from the committee for courts of justice were agreed to:

The committee for courts of justice have, according to order, had under consideration a resolution of the House instructing it to "enquire and report to the House whether or not the committee on House expenses has the authority to direct additional or extra compensation to be paid to any employee of the House," and have come to the following resolution:

Resolved, That the committee on House expenses have not the authority to direct such additional or extra compensation.

The committee for courts of justice have, according to order, had under consideration a resolution enquiring into the expediency and legality of the enactment of the law for reopening the streets and alleys in the town of Newport, in the county of Prince William; and being of the opinion that the question raised is a judicial one, proper to be decided by the courts, have come to the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to legislate on the subject. The SPEAKER laid before the House a communication from the Saratoga monument association of New York.

The communication was referred to the committee for courts of justice.

Mr. LOVELL submitted the following report of the joint committee on printing on the charges preferred by James E. Goode against Richard E. Frayser, superintendent of public printing:

The joint committee on printing, to which was referred, for investigation, a printed communication addressed to the General Assembly by James E. Goode, of Richmond city, containing grave charges with specifications preferred by him against Richard E. Frayser, Superintendent of Public Printing, have the honor to submit to the General Assembly the following report:

The communication of Mr. Goode contains the following charges and specifications, to wit:

"CHARGE.

Incompetency, and utter disregard of truth in taking the clause of the oath relative to his practical knowlege of the printing business, as prescribed by ch. 18, sec. 3. p. 212. Code of 1873; also, falsifying the records, by garbling and otherwise, so as to present a more favorable showing for himself in his report to the General Assembly.

"SPECIFICATIONS.

"I. That he was utterly ignorant of the printing business when he took said oath ; that he had never occupied any position that would have enabled him to be conversant with said business; and that, although warned by the Secretary of the Commonwealth at the time the oath was administered by him, he recklessly and wilfully took it, thereby committing moral if not legal perjury, in swearing to possess a knowledge that he did not.

"II. That when he took said oath, he was not competent to give any instruction as to the mechanical execution of the work; that he could not, without instruction, measure and ascertain the correctness of the accounts for printing to him presented for certification; that he employed as porter, a printer (who was carrying on the business of printing for himself, and who continued to do so after he became such porter), from whom he received instruction and advice; and that, although the superintendent is required, and did certify over his signature the correctness of the printing accounts, he was unable, of his own practical knowledge, to do so.

“III. That for the purpose of examining and certifying the correctness of the printing accounts, the law knows no officer or other person than the superintendent, Who is required by his oath to PRACTICALLY know whether an account is correct or not; that the Commonwealth's fund appropriated for this branch of her service, was at the dictation of the porter, and the office has been wholly run and managed, so far as mechanical knowledge is concerned, by the aforesaid porter, and the State has not that protection from the oath of office that it was designed to secure to her. IV. That the porter is managing the office now executing the printing under the superintendent's contracts, as well as rendering assistance to the superintendent, and that the State is liable to the perpetration of gross frauds from the incompetency of the superintendent, which it would be difficult to detect, without an examination by a disinterested expert, of copies of the work submitted with the accounts. "V. That the said porter has repeatedly said that he had to examine the accounts and pass upon their correctness, and in other ways perform the duties of the office, and that the superintendent did not know anything about the printing business. The superintendent has admitted, and so stated to others, that he was wholly dependent on the said porter for information of a practical character-thus making the porter de facto the superintendent, and Frayser, superintendent, de jure.

VI. That he has so constructed his annual report and misquoted figures, as to make it appear that to his administration is the credit due for the reduction in expense therein shown; that he has omitted certain figures, but given their results,

well knowing that the very figures omitted produced those results, and are the same upon which HE PAID the bills for the work."

To these charges and specifications Captain Frayser filed his answer, denying each and every one, and praying the committee to make a full and searching examination into the working and management of said office of Superintendent of Public Printing, now held and managed by him.

The committee will state that after the said communication, containing said charges, and the answer of Captain Frayser thereto, came before them for investigation, authority was asked for and granted to the committee to send for persons and papers, in order that a thorough examination might be made. By virtue of this authority all witnesses desired by either Goode or Frayser were promptly summoned to appear before the committee, and all papers and documents deemed necessary were produced, each party being aided by learned counsel.

It will appear by examing the communication of Mr. Goode that he makes three distinct and substantive charges against Captain Frayser.

First-Perjury.

Second-Incompetency.

Third-Falsifying the records by garbling and otherwise, so as to present a more favorable showing for himself in his report to the General Assembly.

Before adverting to the evidence adduced before the committee it is deemed best to give the law bearing upon the subject, since upon its true interpretation and construction will greatly depend some of the conclusions arrived at by the committee.

By reference to the Code of Virginia, 1873, ch. 19, sees. 2 and 3, p. 212. it will appear that the legislature is limited by the statute in the election of a Saprintendent of Public Printing to the following qualifications, viz:

1st.

He shall take the oaths required of other State officers.

2d. He shall, besides take an oath, that he is skilled in and acquainted with the practical details of the business of printing; that he will not be in any manner interested, directly or indirectly, in the contracts for the printing, binding, lithographing, and engraving to be let out by him, or in the contract for the stationery which he shall purchase under the 8th section of this chapter, and that he will not participate in the profits arising from the samé.”

3d. He shall give bond to be approved by the Governor in the sum of $5,000, conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties of his office.

The law makes these the only conditions of his entering upon the duties of the office: the statutes against perjury, and the right of action on his official bond, being the only guarantees to the State for the faithful discharge of his official duties.

THE CHARGE OF PERJURY.

It is charged by Goode that Frayser, the Superintendent of Public Printing, in taking that clause of the said oath, that he is skilled in and acquainted with the practical details of the business of printing," did so with "utter disregard of truth;" or, as he states it in his first specification, he recklessly and wilfully took it, thereby committing moral, if not legal, perjury, in swearing to possess a knowledge that he did not." (Vide charges and specifications.)

It was earnestly contended, and the question was ably argued by counsel to show that the legislative intent in prescribing said oath was to make a knowledge of praetical printing or type-setting a necessary qualification of the Superintendent of Public Printing, and that by a true construction of the above clause of said oath, no person except a practical printer or type-setter could take it without commiting the crime of perjury.

It being admitted by Frayser that he was not a practical printer, or type-setter, at the time of taking said oath, he is therefore charged with perjury.

The question arises, does the statute require the Superintendent of Public Printing to be a practical printer or type-setter? Was it the intention of the Legislature in framing said oath to make the practical knowledge of type-setting one of the necessary qualifications of said officer?

In construing the language of the oath two cardinal rules of construction should be kept in mind.

1st. That this, like all statutes in derogation of common right, should be strictly construed; and no person should be deprived of eligibility to hold the office except