The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-12-08

sAN
violation OF the contract between the State
and its creditors.
The statement thus far, think, establishes
conclusively: First. That the capital and profits
of the bank were efectually pledged and dedi-
Gated to be fund for the security and payment
of the Fire Loan debt, principal anl interest;
and this pledge caunot be repudlated without
violation OF public faith.
Second. That the Fire Loan bonds are debt
of the bank as we'll as Of the State, and the
seizure of the bank property and assets, by tho
solo corporator and capitalist, to his own use,
ration, would be an unlawful act, if by citi-
zen; and bad faith, il by State.
Ihra: mat The fund. created BY the profits
OF the bank, is ample for the payment OF the
Fire Loan and other debts Of tho bank, and 1t
has been withdrawn from the bank and receiV,
ed by the State, and ought now to be applied
to tue payment of that and other debts, or re-
turned to the bank and the bank compelled to
pay it.
I now proceed to show what has been done
by the State, the creditors and their counsel;
By the act of December, 1865, the Leglsla,
turc 'authorized and required the president
and directors to collect the assets and proper
ty of the bank, and hold the same specially ap,,
propriated, first, to the payment ofthe prnclpal
and interest of the bonds known as Fire Loan
bonds, PAYABLE in Europe" Having in view
the pledges to which attention has been
called, think no one has cause to COM
plain of this legislation, unless the mold
ers of the Fl Loan STOCK. may do SO;
and thea have not complained. Ii that con-
tlrgency shall arise it will be time enough to
express an opinion. 1t would be prcmature to
do so now Lut the billholders took differ
ent view of the matter. They we're dissatls-
| fed and brought Their bill in chancery, claim
ing u preference for themselves. Inc ponu-
holders and the holders of the stock were
made parties defendant and brought into
court and into ''unworrantable litigation" 80
was the Attorney-G General, that he might de-
fend the act Of 1865.
The chancellor, on motion of the billholders,
| (other parties all consentln9,, eWolned the
bank assets and property IN tho possession ol
the president and directors ana the CASHIER,
making them custodees in the nature OF re-
ceivers. The court thus brought the properly
under its immediate contral and jurisdiction.
The blhoders were directed to prove their
| claims before the master.
There then seemed to be no fear OF waste
or s'misapplication" of the property. NO
''policy of disparagiing credit or resources noo
of any to be "made away With, nor any
spurrose to bring the credit of the State, or any
one, into disrepute," or of any other "oblects
| Of equally questionable propriety," but only 10
proceed in the ordinary, old-fashioned way
with chancery suit, where there was no great
complication OF question, and the nope OF an
early trial, an impartial and satisfactory ]udg-
ment.
This quiet judicial proceeding, which hardy
rose to the earnestness of litigation, was sud
denly broken in upon. The General Assembly
was wonderfully seized with q zeal, that would
not be postponed, to pay the billhelders. ny
the act CT September 15 1868, they directed
the Governor to issue bonds for the pay ment
OF the bills, to close the bank, seize and sell
the bank property and assets, put the money
into the treasury subject to his order, ana 10
account to the Legislature. 10 the untortu,
nate Fire Loan holders and other creditors OF
the bank they made no sign, nor GaYo one woro
of hope or comfort. They were, however US
we'll treated as the Court Of Chancery. The act
was an act of spoliation as to the creditors OF
the bank, and of bad faith by the Legislative
| power.
The Governor made his demand, but the
board of directors, retaining their old HABITS
of respect for judges and reverence Tor the que
administration Of the law, declined to sur
render. Then began the earnest litigation.
The Governor began it. he called it "un-
warrantable." am of the same opinion, Tor
different reason. He moved before his Honor
Associate Justice Willard, OF the Supreme
Court, for the Prerogatsue Writ OF MGndana"s.
An elaborate hearing was hld. His Honor re-
fused the motion, in o learned and vel. con-
sidered Judgment, which has received the
general appreciation CT the profession.
The Governor has sued out writ OF error,
and the cause is still pending under appeal.
Not content with this, he has seen lit to put
upon record. in his annual message, the censo-
rious and insoent paragraph above recited,
| and thus appeal from the court, whose audi
ence and judgment ho sought, 10 the audience
and Judgment OF the public. meet him, then,
in behalf of myself and the clients L IN part
represent, not without pain and some degree
of humiliation for the sake of the State, but
without anxiety about the judgment. MessrS;;
Barring Brothers & Co. and their counsel
have done, or caused to DO doEe,. no act
which does not become honorable and
liberal men, conscentiously discharging
duties. They have taken no defence (and
they have boen throughout only in defence)
which it was not tnoir duty to take, and con,
sistent with the highest view of commercial
and professional propriety. They leave 1t to
be adjudged whether they and their acts, or
Governor Scott, the Legislature and their acts,
ore disparaaing to and bringing into disre-
putc the credit Of the State.
They break and violate the obligation oil con-
tracts-we maintain and defend their inylo!a-
bihty. Which shall be approved BY honest and
honorable men?
Such is the substance of the whole mat er,
and when that is answered, shall think our
vindlcation complete. -
Charleston, December 5, 1868.