The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-09-30
.srHE CONFEDERATE CAVALRY FUND


We have received q copy of pamphlet. bearing
the following title: "order OF Maor-Ian. SIcKIEs
annullinS Decree of Court of Chancery in South
Carolina, and correspondence relative thereto.
The contents ARE: l. Special Order No. 10; Q.
Return of ISAAC W. HAYSE; 3. Reply of PORTER,
sIMoNToN, CONNER and BARKER; 4. Reply of eHAs.
7. LowNDEs, President Bank of Charleston: 5. Re-
ply OF JOHN T.SLoAN; G. Reply of Hon. HENRY D.
LEsEsNE, and T. Letter in kejoinder from Gen,
SlcKLEs. The first SECOND and third haye already
been published in our columns Wo now give the
replyof Chancellor LEsEsNE, and would state upon
what appears to us good authority that the pro-
ccedings in this matter, have been transferred as
requested by the parties to- the Federal Court ~
REPLY OF HENRY D. LEsEsNE.
SOUTH CAROLINA, IT,
CHARLESTON DISTRICT. LII Equity.
BANK OF CHARLESTON, 3. c., VS.. THE DANk OF The
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Ell AL. o
The Commanding General of tho Second Militia
" District has made. and published all order, .
COPY OF which is hereto annexed respecting my
decree in the above entitled cause. :
IF the order had only set aside The decree for al
legged error, I should not have thought il becom-
inc to take any action on the subject But it also
ascribes to me official improperly OF very graYe
character; and on that I feel it incumbent on me
to say few words.
II characterizes the decree as not only erro.
neous, but O fraud upon the rights Of the United
states and charges that irregular and unusual
means. of which the Chancellor is alleged to have
been cognizant, were used to keep the existence
OF the fund and OF the suit romthe> knowledge OF
NV course in this matter has been misconceiv-
ed And as the representative of court whose
Good name has never suffered until noR. from any
imputation against the'charaeter 81 its members,
of whom some have been eminent for learning and
ability all for the reputation of high iutegrity, 1
Jee7y H. proper to make the following statemsnt,
and 6auscit to be fled with the proceedings in the
cause. The particular means of concealment in
tended are not specified and my method, there
FORE shall be to explain IN eUst order but briefly my
In January, 1866, melton Was made, before me
of Chambers, for an order to paYjntoc court. The
case disclosed by the bill was, Mat the Bank OF
the State held fund in which it claimed no in
terest, and which was GAINED by other parties to
the suit. The order, proposed is the oneusualy
mado under such circumstances. But there was
This technical difficulty, namely: the Bank of the
State had not yet put inits answer to the bull, and
would not consent to the order. therefFc re-
fused to grant 10. Themotion was then feneyed,
on the ground that the fund wa8 in danger, it
beinp the practice, in such q case, to make the
order in inualtl, even before answer filed. Danger
in this case was inferred from IN apprehension
which then prevailed in the community, that the
nossess,on OF, asfhe City Gas Works had beensome'
time before, whereby thus fund, though constitut-
ING no part of the Banks property ewolld be
placed beyond the reachof the court consider
IN by counsel, which Itsigued. It was asked f0r
ana granted as a measure, proper and usual, for
securing the fund for the benefit OF oil concerned
while the litigation lasted. Its purpose was seS
curity, not concealment. And as tQ the r1Sht 10
the fun j. now asserted Tor the United States, it
not only did not come under discussion, but the
idea of it's being the property of the United States
was not in my mind at sill. VI course therefore 1T
did not occur to me to require notice to be given to
the United States as necessary OF proper party to
Having made this order Iheard no more of til q
case and thought No ndre Of it, until it came up
in February, 1867 in open court on o motion to
docket fer triG. 1t then,appeared that the plead
ings had not been previously filed. But of.that
was ignorant until the motion was made. II Is
proper to mention this,a a.because withholding the
pleadings from the file may be intended as one OF
the things called ''irregu1sr and uuusual 30,
discaim the k9oEedas e it. Bgt in making
that disapprove t1e thipg done. ,Such,a csarse
is by NO means unusual, and do not SEQ any imf
propriety in it in the present instance. And here
gladly take occasion V say OF the sohcitors IN
this cause, one and all, that they would be inca
gable of attempting tOmislead the court into the
commission OF anything improper.
The cause Of erwards eaule before the court on
petition by Mr.. Sloan, 70 be let in as cloimant
and for reference to Master to- ascertain and
report the amount Of the claims. represented
by him. Upon this point the = plalntaas
and the petitioner cohtended warmly against
each other. 1t was argued fully. and earn,
estly in open court and the question reserved
for consideration. But before any uecis!on was
made, theparties agreed among themselves upon
the manner of dividing the fund, and submitted
paper. in open court, which, being assented to by
ali, was signed and made thsterfe 3he court.
| Lastly, anorder was made 6r leave t6y:thdraw
the original papers from the file. Such Ill order.
having, as in this case the consent Of al the par
ties. is so much a matter OF course, thaktt,Yp7
signed With out question. Il have known SUCH OF
ders Ito be granted, where's the efieet was,tOex1
pupee everything. But here the orders and the de-
tntes no hindrance to the obtaining offuh infofma
ton by any inquirer Of all that has been done in the
cause. And its effect was 10 prevent further ltga-
tion by means Of these proceedings, on account OF
claims for sales Of horses that might BE- brought
forward. After this order, it would have been ne
ccssary for any such claimant to inshtutna q new
proceeding For himself. a = sF j - .
II have rendered myself obnoxious to reproacn
in this matter it can only be for error otjudgment
or ignorance Of the law. The orlcr assumes that
the fund legally belonged to the United states.
Thoro was nothing disclosed In thu case before me
which then led me to such a conclusion; and there
IS nothing in the facts thon or now knoEn-toffnc
which changes my opinion. The proceedings
were unexceptionable with reference to the
opinion entertained And only claim the COM
mon right of credit for sincerity in the Affirmation
|'of that opinfon.
It is ordered that the Register do fls thisst ste-
ment with the proceedings of this cause.
August 9th, 1857. I, HENRY-D7 DE6RHrE
ESn E9e