The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-11-02
THE BINK OF THE SITE.
Argument of Hon. j. q. Campbell.

On Saturday, Hon. James B. Campbell
closed his argument on the application for
n,1nlar,us in the case OF the Slate Us. the
President and Directors Of the Bank, and
with it the discussion of the case before JUS
tice Willard, who reserved his decision.
Mr.. Campbell, continuing his argument from
Friday, said that manddneus was not the ap-
propriate remedy in this case-;n fact, could
not be q remedy. After an examination OF the
statute 9 Anne, he had como to the con-
clusion that it referred only to municipal
corporations, aud therefore did not apply to
this case, as to which the common law prac-
tice in cases of nlandaous was i'll full torce
and had been recognized by the act OF the
present Legislature organizing the Supreme
Court. This brought him to the consideration
of the point that the Bank Of the State was
not public corporation, but private trading
company, just as the Bank OF England had
been decided to be private trading con-
pany. That State by taking stock
in an incorporated company did not i'm
sovereign character, but qaoad hoe became
as private individual, was clearly decid ed in
the case OF Curran vs.. Arkansas, already fire.
ouently referred to-. In support Of this posi-
ton, Mr.. Campbell read quotations from the
case of Curran vs.. Arkansas, and also from
series Of decisions on similar points that had
come up in the Supreme Court of the United
States. He then went on to say that the great
mistake made by the counsel on the other side
was in treating the bank officers as public oili-
cials. They had accepted the popular idea
rather than the logical and legal result OF The
connection between the bank and the State.
It was true that the officers OF the bank wero
elected by the Legislature, but they were elect
ed by the Legislature, as the representatives OF
the State, as the only stockholder and not as
the representatives of the State in its political
nature. It was, therefore, clear misappre-
hension to suppose that the officers Of the cor
poration were the officers Of the State. Il,
then, it were true, as stated, that the bank was
private corporation, it followed of course that
the neanddn,us was not asked to compel the
performance of a public duty, and the court
would not grant 1t for any other purpose. On
this point Mr.. Campbell cited many cases both
from the English and South Carolina reports,
and also Tappan on meanddnaus. 10
question asked by Justice Willard whether the
bank as corporation did not fulfil an
Office to the State, an was not therefore liable
to mandamus. Mr.. Campbell replied that, al
though the bank was fiscal agent Of the State,
it did not follow that every agent was an officer
to make public officer public Office must be
created, and the officer elected or appointed to
perform the duties of the Office. And to an
vther question from the Justice, whether the
State did not unite in itself the power of the
stockholder and the political power which Gre
ated the charter and thus have the right to do
what, in the case of another bank, would re-
ouire the mutual consent Of the State and cor
poration, Mr.. Campbell replied that so far as
between the State and the bank, the State
might do what it pleased, might even destroy
the charter, because there would be no one
to OPPOSE; but as soon as the rights of third
parties were affected, the authority of Curran's
case came in. and it was res judacdtG that
as against third parties, corporation With n
State as one Of the corporators was not dl1er-
ent from any other corporation: and IN sup
port of this position, he quoted an opinion OF
Mr.. Petgru, which was given on matter
arising out Of the transactions of the very bank
which was now under discussion. Proceeding
then with his argument, Mr.. Campbell
brought it TO the notice of the Justice, that
not only was nl1ndansus not the proper
remedy, but it was no remedy at all, because it
would not accomplish the object sought. The