The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-01-08
BANE OF TILE STATE.
Letter from the aon. I. w. Haync.
TO TIE PUBLIC.

TO TIE PUBLIC.
can truly say, with the Morse Prophecies,
whose spirit was called up from the sleep of
ages by Odin of old, as represented in Gray's
poem
"Unwillins my lips unclose
Leave me, leave me 10 repose.
So far as personal alteration is concerned,
it was always distasteful to me. TIME and the
times have made it hateful. But turn when
trodden on, and the report OF the Joint Com
mitlee of the two houses Of the Legislature,
on the subject Of the bank, compels reply.
Why these grave gentlemen, the Hol. D. L.
Corbin and Mr.. Reuben Tomlinsoa, in a pub
lie document protesting to deal only in facts
and figures, should feel themselves called on
to asperse, nnd by s'damnable iauendo" to vii.
lify individuals engaged in the performance Of
professional duty, T foil to perceive. There
was time in South Carolina when such asper
sions would have involved personal respOn-
sibihty on the part of those. who made The
charge. But our fortunate ~ State is, sup
pose in the march of progress and REFORM re-
lieved from those barbarous and ant1quated
restraints upon ill nature and malignity. 70
do full Justice, however, to tho authors Of this
report, I do not believe that i'll nature or ma
lignity prom, ,ted their unwarrantable assault
on the counsel who had just been sustained IN
their position by Associate Justice Willard.
The soreness of defeat may have given acri-
mony to Mr.. Corbin who was Of counsel on
the losing side; but the report, I do not think,
was written by him. The vanity Of the rhet-
orician, who imagines himself gifted in satire
and sarcasm, is often, however, more ruthless
than resentment. A we'll turned sentence COM
pensates for oil injustice and possible injury
done to others.
If the facts presented by Messrs. Ccrbin and
Tonlneen condemn Mr.. Campbell and myself,
| then we are condemned. The gratuitous and
insulting comments Of Messrs. Corbin and
Tomlinson are mere impertinence, and think
7 can afford to treat them as such.
The facts presented are these:
First. The counsel (Mr @. and myselD re-
present several different defendants in the
same suit in equity, to wit: The bank, the Bar
ings, Maria Simons, &c.
There may bo something in the progressive
code Of morals and honor, recently introduced,
which ls opposed to this; but as practitioner
in tho old Court OF Equity, of thirty-six Years.
standing, IN tho face OF my brethren OF the
bar, avow that I was never aware Of the im-
propricty. So long as the interests OF defend
ants were alike, they might properly be rep1e-
sented by the same solicitors. II the bank, the
Barings and Miss Simons are content,
who else has a right. to object
was solicitor Of the bank, and the
Barings, with this knowledge, retained
me, the bank consenting. Miss Simsns
with this knowledge employed me. Both we're
furnished with rly answer for the bank before
! engaging me. The bank answered as o Trus-
tee under the acts OF 1888 and 1865, and the
Barings and Miss Slmons were the cestuis
que trust. The bill Of Dlbney, Morgan g. Co.
proposed to take away the funds held by the
| frro 4orf nil nv nan,
parties moro homogeneous 1t is certainly
less singular than holding the ofires of
United States District Attorney and State
| Senator. Acknowledgement and Circuit Solici-
tor, Adjutaut-General and Speaker of the
House, &c.
Second. Mr.. Campbell and myself sanctioned
the payment OF q feo of $3.50 to MIR. Thomas Y.
Simons. We thought MIR. Simons services.
worth that much to the bank, in sustaining its
position as al honest trustee desiring to apply
the funds as directed by the Legislature. Mr..
Dawsons property. unfortunately Tor him, COR
sisted OF State stock On which no interest had
been paid for some years. This could only be
sold at an enormous discount. Mr. Dawson,
therefore, could advance nothing, and MIR.
| Campbell and myself believing that the trust
fund would be ultimately liable for expenses
incurred, advised the bank to secure Mr. Sim-
ons' aid by this moderate advance. Is there
crime in this? The bank had right, certain
ly, to employ him directly. They preferred TO
avail themselves Of his services IN this less ex-
pe,sive way. Does MIR. Corbin know OF no
other instance of a corporation employing
couusel lat a much higher fgure) over and
| above their regular solicitor, and already re-
tained assistant counsel? Why deny to the
bank what Mr.. Corb:n and MIR. Chamberlain
concede to other corporations? The bank
wanted Mr.. Simons' services, and we thought
it got them cheap.
| The third part is directed against myself in
dividualiy, to wit: answered the bill Of Dab
ney, Morgan d Co. rs Attorney-General, with
out the sanction OF Governor Orr. may he
wrong, but during the twenty years I held the
Office OF Attorney-General, I supposed that in
such matters had discretion ofmy own, and
applied to the Governor only when thought
The case demanded fee from the contingent
fund. In tho absence OF instructions from his
EXcellency, 7 took it upon myself, as Attorney
| Goneral 10 sustain The validity Of al act Of
tAe Legislature which was attacked, and be-
came party, as had right to do, for that
| purpose Governor OIrs message, 70 which
the report refers, alludes, | think, to the ques-
tion Of the liability OF tho State to pay the bulls
| OF the bank. Upon that question his Excel
lency was always much more confident than
myself He thought 1t clear that the State
was not liable for those bills, and l could
not persuade him that the decision OF
tho Court Of Errors Us to tho rccciva-
Dility of such bills u, payment OF tarss, was
| IL position requiring defence. LII that matter
/ tho Governor expressly declined to au h0rlze
an appearance in the Supreme Court at Wash
ingten, anu don't know that an appearance
| has been cnt ,red to this day. The Legislature
has undertaken to repeal the portion Of tho
act OF 1872 on which thls question arose. The
incapacity of the Legislature 10 repeal such
ali net IS res ddiudlca.a III the case OF Frapnal
vs.. Woodruff, in 10Th Howard 2O6. This body
has undertaken TO repeal tue act OF 1865, which
adopted by the Board ofDrecters OF the Bank,
and accepted by the Darings, think equally
contract with the act of 1872. and to disregard
the act of183S, which think likewise contract.
But THIS legislation vas subsequent to the
answer filed by ME, and aftcrI ceased 10 rep
resent LEc State as Att0rncy-Gencral. That
answer, conforming as 1t did to the then ex-
pressed legislative WILL with my views, was
! duty and l needed no instructions from Coy
crnor Or.
But the gravamcn of the charge against tho
counsel in this case thine dlte iac!trimtr y is
| the caution" endorsed o the bonds of the
corporation held by the bank. That caution
reads as follows:
caution.
"Ths ond constitutes q portion OF the assets Of
'she Bank OF the state of Soath Carolina embraced
on the order OF the Court OF Clancery of the said
estate cf the date OF March ., 1853 in tile case of
"Dabney Morgan & Co. VS.. the Bank of the state of
..ou,h Carolina ana others. and cannot be legally
.ranIfurreI excait b. order of said court. or the
written assignment Of Charles VI. furnlln and
"Thonas /. VAIN
"lHoS. r. WARINGi, Cashier"