The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1868-12-19
I. Hhe ysS orEI .iEss IEaIl5Hl 19E ) iase

T6e Nss E9rR 4 issl.5a al ) late
The authorities in South c:ssoSiina
seem to;hsye singular notions. as to.
how to strengthen the. credit of tGeir
State, If we may Judge BY The follow
ing passage Of the Governor's Mes.
sage: s, ", ss
III recommend to the Legislature
that some early action be taken to
prevent the Courts and officers of the
Bank of the State from wasting and
mis-applying its assets to the pay
ment of costs of courts, ATTORNEYS
fees, and the salaries of officers and
agents. II the holders of the Fire
Loan Bonds are determined to. pur-
sue the policy of disparaging the
credit and resources of the State,
when it must be apparent to them
that no State of the Union is more
solvent, or has a fairer prospect of
promptly meet all her liabilities, they
should be compelled to carry on this
litigation at their own expense. I
have reason to believe that not less
than $50, 900 in gold has been squan-
dered and made away with for sala-
ries of officers and agents who are
performing no necessary duties, fees
of attorneys who are employed for
the purpose of bringing the credit of
the State into disrepute, and for
other objects of equally questionable
propriety. The holders of the Fire
Loan Bonds should be placed on the
same footing as other creditors of
the State, aud they should be held
accountable for all damages the State
has sustained, or may sustain, by
their unwarrantable litigation"
One is surprised, after reading this
illumination, to learn from the state
ment of Mr.. Hayne, the counsel of
the party attacked, that the State is
n debtor in default with its debt past
due; that the Fire Loan Bond-holdcrs
are creditors entitled to certain col
laterals pledged by the State when
the contract was made i'm 1888;
that in 1865 the Legislature-the
Bank being insolvent-confirmed the
pledges of 1888, AID appropriated
the assets of the Bank of the State
of South Carolina to the holders of
the bonds; and. finally, that all the
litigation that has ensued, grew out
of suit instituted by the 5iu-holde,.s
of the Bank, brought in 1867, seek
ing to set aside the Act of the Legis-
lature in favor of the bond holders,
and claiming for themselves these
assets which the bond-holders of the
Bank simply defend, and that it has
cost little over 100000, instead of
100000. In 1868. the Legislature
passed an Act disregarding the Act
OF 1888, and repeating that of 1865,
and requiring the Governor to seize
the whole assets of the Bank, then q
depositi in equity, and to place the
funds in the State Treasury. In the
same Act, satisfactory provision was
made for the bill-holders, who began
the litigation, and none for the bond
holders, who are defenders.
1t does seem rather hard, on these
facts, that people who advanced their
money thirty years ago, to help re-
build the city of Charleston, should
be threatened with being made ac-
countable for "all damages the State
has sustained by their unwarrantable
litigation" We do not pretend to
go into the merits of the case, but
suggest that these merits be left to
the courts, and that common pru-
dence would suggest that distant
bond-holders, writing for their
money, long past due, at time, too,
when the Governor tells them, that
mo State in the Union is more SOL
vent" should be made to feel that
every facility is afforded them by the
State to defend rights, which they, at
least, believe to be uudoubted. South
Carolina cannot afford, either as a
matter of money or of character, to
damage its opening career of pros
perity by any other course. The fact
is, too, that the holders of the bank
bills, for whose benefit this extraor-
dinary interference with the action
of the courts is talked of, have bought
them up for about eight cents on the
dollar, and, we fear, are adding an
other to the number of "rings'' by
which the country is now infested.