The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-10-31

ReSolued, That ihe members OF the Central
Democratic Club, as individuals, Will give an
the counsel and aid in their power IN carrl!ns
out To the fullest extent The successful eicctlon
of the candi dates so chosen.
The foregoing were then communicated 10
the delegates from the various wards and ac-
cepted by them.
THE BANK OF TIE STATE.-The argument on
the writ of nanddnus prayed for by the Attor-
ney-Geueral on behalf of the State against the
President and Directors Of the Bank OF the
State. was continued before Justice Willard
yesterday.
Colonel Thomas Y. Simons, in an able and
elaborate argument, replied to the argument
Of the Attorney General. He Showed that the
bank was chal tered corporation, and as such
responsible to it's creditors, and that the good
faith of the State being pledged to those credi-
tors in the first place TO make them secure
from the assets of the bank, and in the seco1d
place to pay their claims in certain order OF
priority, it was not competent for the L"gisla-
ture of the State to 60 back on that arrange
ment and make different disposition OF the
assets.
At the conclusion OF Colonel Simons' arGu-
ment, Major D. T. Corbin rose ard concluded
the argument on the part OF tn, State, making
the following points That n,dndanus lies
wherever there is no other legal remedy,
and there being no other adequate remedy
| in this case, n,andamuS was the appropri-
ate proceeding. That the mondanuS was
not sought in this case to test the validity
of the law, because the claimants acted under
the law, andit was Only the respondents Who
disputed its force. Iu regard to the con-
stitutionality of the act of 1868, it was not IN
conflict with the various acts passed IN relation
to the Bank of the State before the war; be-
cause they only pledged the profits OF the
bank, and the bank no longer had profits; and
though it did repeal the act OF 1865, that was
| no violation Of the Constitution Of the United
States, because the act OF 1865 was in no sense
contract, but simply an act OF Legislative
favor. without consideration and without par
ties the very essence OF contract. In regard
to the objection that other suits were pending,
the respondents argued themselves out OF
court, for, if only one court could take cog
nizance OF the matter, the suit was only IN the
State Court of Chancery, and not in sle United
States Court, aud the suit IN tho State Court
was put an end to by the act itself, the con-
stitutiopality of which had not been ue'!ion-
cd in that court. Moreover, the suit in the
United States Court was not properly us
pendeus, because no answer had been
put in, and as the bill! was against the
Governor of the State, as such, tue suit would
be dismissed as soon as il was brought to the
notice OF the court The act Of 1865 was proved
to be unconstitutional by the case OF Currau
VS.. Arkansas, because twas an attempt to pre-
fer the bondholders to the biilholders when
the bank had an outstanding currency OF
| So ,O0O, 900. There was nothing in the act OF
| 1868 to show that the State intended spoliation
or robbery; on the contrary, they had provided
| especially, in liberal manner, for the bill
holders, and the whole past financial history OF
the State was guarantee that the other credi-
tors were safe.
Hon. J. B. Campbell, to whom was assigned
the duty Of closing the argument on behalf OF
the respondents, spoke until the hour oil ad-
journment, but had not time to do much more
than indicate the course of argument which he
intended to pursue. He called the attention
of Justice Willard to the great and unusual I'M
portance of the case, not so much on account
| OF the large sums of money involved, but on
account of the momentous question to be de-
cjded, not only for this State or country, but
for the whole commercial world whether legal
rights could be maintained in South Carolina
by the integrity of the Judiciary against the
assumptions OF power. He showed that, un-
der the new State Constitution and the acts OF
the present Legislature, an Associate Justice
of the Supreme Court at Chambers cou'd
only grant mdnddmus according to the
law as heretofore practiced IN South Ca
lima, and that according to the law as
so nracticed mandanauS did not lie un-
less the claimant could show legal title.
| There was no title or pretence of title on the
part OF the claimants in this case; they even
acknowledged title in the respondents. More
over, at the common law. the writ OF manda-
mus did not lie as remedy in matters OF pro-
perty, and the act OF the present Legislature,
enabling the Attorney General to sue out the
writ in such cases, was in words contining his
power to cases where there hal been an intru-
sion upon the property of the State, or nui-
sance committed thereon. The Presi-
dent and Directors of the Bank OF the
State, so far from being intruders upon
the property of the State, Or guilty of
committing nuisance thereon. were acknow-
lodged to be the owners Of the subject matter
in dispute by the very act to enforce which
this mandan,us was prayed, and also by the
plaintiffs on the record. He also showed that
by the words Of the act organizing the Su-
preme Court, it rendered the decision ofany one
Justice OF that Court, on matter OF mandd-
mus, liable to appeal, and that ii was the prac-
tice in this State heretofore to make the man
dan,us in the first instance alternative, either
to perform the required act, or to show cause
for not so doing, and that when the nlandanevs
had been made peremptory by 4 Circuit Judge
it was still liable to be set aside by the Court OF
Appeals.
Mr.. Campbell Will continue his argument to-
day.
HOTEL ARRIvALs-October 3).-Chaueston
Hotel.-Robert Shaw. Philadelphia; Albert
Lorech, New York; James .. Moore, Augusta,
Geo.: N. L. Kinarsl, Columbia; J. c. Courtney,
n. p. Adams, South Carolina; c. q. Foy, City;
- I