The collection consists of correspondence and papers pertaining to the legal and political careers of Robert Taylor Scott and Richard Carter Scott, father and son, Virginia lawyers, judges, and politicians. The Scotts were partners in a Richmond based law firm, Scott & Scott, and both served as Virginia's Attorney General in the late nineteenth century.

Series I: Book contains the copy of the book Manual of the Senate and House of Delegates of Virginia, 1893-1894.

Series II: Correspondence is organized by the receipient of the correspondence. These are separated into four subseries, Richard Carter Scott, Robert Taylor Scott, Tazewell Ellett, and Fragments. Fragments consists of letters with an unknown receipient and partial letters. Within each subseries, they are organized by year. Each year contains a list of authors and letter dates.

Series III: Papers consists of documents related to both Scotts, along with some unknown papers. Richard Carter Scott's papers contains an application for a license, bills, a card, checks, and his children's report cards. Robert Taylor Scott has a legal document.

Information from the original finding aid:

The letters consist of legal and political correspondence, dealing with legal matters and cases the pair faced in both private practice and as Attorney General or while serving on the bench. There are also numerous letters dealing with Virginia politics especially the efforts of Robert Taylor Scott to secure the nomination as Democratic candidate for Attorney General in 1893 and 1897. The archive also includes a series of 45 letters from and to Tazewell Ellett who was one of Scott’s main backers in the campaign. The letters document Virginia state politics at the time – in particular the contest between the interests of eastern and “southwestern” Virginia. The letters detail the efforts to secure political support among convention delegates from central and “south-western” Virginia for R. Taylor Scott. The correspondence describes the process, favors are sought or those previously given pointed out, etc. Most of the correspondents in this archive were also Virginia lawyers and politicians of the era, most of whom were veterans of the Confederate States Army.

One of Judge R. Carter Scott’s cases, in which his decision was reversed by the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals played a major role in ameliorating the lives of African Americans in Virginia in the early 20th century. A decision of far-reaching importance was rendered by the Supreme Court of Appeal of Virginia, sitting at Wytheville. It was the case of People’s Pleasure Park Company, Inc. vs. Rohledger. The Circuit Court of Henrico, Judge R. Carter Scott, presiding was reversed. This was the case where the colored company purchased Fulton Park as a pleasure resort and the white people of the neighborhood objected to the sale and instituted proceedings to prohibit the use of the park by colored people. An injunction was sued out before Judge R. Carter Scott and granted to be effective, when the bond specified therein was furnished. The case was finally heard upon its merits and the injunction made perpetual. Messrs, Smith, Moncure and Gordon were counsel for the defendants and it was by the persistent efforts of that firm that the far-reaching decision was rendered. The Supreme Court has thus decided that the injunction should not have been granted. The opinion was handed down Thursday, June 11, 1908. We call attention to the fact that this decision is of more far-reaching importance to the colored people of this State that any that has been rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States. It makes a citizen feel, whatever his race or color may be that he can get justice in this commonwealth. Race prejudice will not be permitted to interfere with the issuance of that evenhanded justice for which this State is noted. It also establishes beyond cavil the fact that a Negro’s property rights are as safe in Virginia as they are in any other State of the Union and that so long as he exercises his rights in a lawful way he will be protected in the exercise and enjoyment of those rights. We have always had a high opinion of our Supreme Court but now we feel that those rights that we cannot get through the decisions of that tribunal, we are ready to go without”