The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-01-18
THE BANK OF TIE STATE.

THE BANK OF TIE STATE.
Proceedings in the Supreme Court.
rsE PROCEEDINGS ON FRIDAY-ARaUMENTs OF
MEssns. HAYNE AND cAMpsELL-DFo1sloN OF
TIE couRT-IHE PROCEEDINGS ON SATURDAY.
rFRoM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.
COLUMBIA, January 1G, 1S69.-It is now three
days since counsel commenced their heavy
skirmishing in the Supreme Court over the
Rank of the State, and get the battle has scarce
ly begun. The proceedings OF Ihursday nave
been before you. On Friday Mr.. Hayne started
out With three points: /. That the cause was
not docketed in accordance with the rule OF the
court. which declares that all appeals shall be
docketed the first term OF the Appeal Court af-
ter thew are decided, and on or before the sitting
ofthe court. It had also been placed on the DOCK
et without notice to the adverse party. z. Ihat
the case in its present form is not entitled TO
n place on the docket. 1t comes up by writ OF
error. and the right to that writ does not apply
in the case OF Judge OF the Supreme Court
s;ttinp at chambers. The only idea OF q writ
of error we have is writ to superior from an
inferior court. What are inferior courts! They
ora described in the constitution to be tho Cir
emit Court, Probate Court, and Justices OF the
Peace. In an act of the present Legislature
entitled Gan act to organize the Supreme
Court." it is declared that leach OF the Justi-
ces Of the Supreme Court shall have power to
issue writs of junction, n,andanans, quo 'oa'-
,nuto. habeds corpus, and other remedial writs,
snhiect TO re-examination, affirmaDce or reyer-
snl. and final adjudication by the proper juris-
diction."
Did the constitution or the Legislature con-
TEMPLATE that single judge OF the supreme
Court, hearing one OF these motons AT cnan,
bers Vas thereby constituted on inferior courtI
Most assuredly not, for in that case ne would
descend TO the level OF magistrate; the appeal
from his decision would be to the Circuit Court,
md from thence by writ OF error the cause
would come before the Supreme Bench. Such
an idea is inconsistent with The genera! scheme
| of the judiciary department. IL "olla pe onS
| of the most mjschievous provisions OF tne con-
stitntion. because it would be an invitation to
indirect practices and corruption. Ii 1t was
desired to qet rid Of 9 supreme Judge, under
such construction nothing would be easier
than to mako motion before him at chambers,
and then resist his hearing the nain question
| on the bench, after which 30 me other person
NAV he commissioned to fill his place. II the
cnnrt reach the conclusion that the writ OF
error does not Lie in cases ofthis sort, but that
another mode is provided by which any error
in the Judgment of supreme judge sitting at
chambers may be re-exaulned and revised,
our third proposition is established, namely,
that there is nothing in the nature OF tne pre-
cent case to exclude the judge who granted the
writ from sitting on the supreme bench.
Judge willard, who had taken his seat for
| the purpose of participating IN the nearing OF
the nreliminary motion to q lash the writ OF
error. said be could not sit in the capacity OF
Judge as to his Own qualifications.
Mr. Hayne accordingly waived this point, ana
proceeded to enlarge upon the proposinon tnas tSa
| there is no writ OF error from judge OF the
Supreme Court sitting at chambers, but tnat
after he has decided upon one OF those reme-
dial writs, it shall, upon motion before hlm, pe
subject TO re-examination, afhrmance or re-
yersal and final adjudication by the proper Ju-
risdiction. However strange 1t mlgnt appear,
it was clearly the law enacted that tne case
shomld 90 TO the Circuit Court for decision.
MIR. Corbin followed in reply. This case was
mt mon the docket by motion. The rule
quoted does not apply to it. 1t remains; tnere-
fore. with The court to determine whether the
exercise of its discretionary power was correct:
The case was not docketed on the hrst day OF
the term for tho simple reason that 1t could
NOT he heard, and as under the law we are en-
t;tied TO a writ of error at any time within
wear. the court exercised its own convenience.
The Chief Justice remarked that when ne
| took his seat upon the bench, he found it 10
he the practice to allow cases to bo docketed
nj any time without any regard to the question
whether they would try it at the same term OF
not. -, .,.4 80 - t,,o
onestion whether the writ OF error applies to
this case. it is the only proper mode to bring
the case before the Supreme Court That an
anneoI will not lie, u emphatically settled by
the constitution. 1t could only come then IN
one of the modes known to the common law.
There is no doubt that the writ OF error IS ex-
pressly provided for correcting errors OF Jaw IN
the Circuit Courv, but still the question remains,
how can We get tho record from an INFERIOR
eourtP The common law practice, so for as we
| know saws by writ of error, or by 0erttofdTt.
The first is the true mode. The supreme
| Court of the United States have adJudlcated
thus question in tho case OF j. w. Ward and H.
K. Gail, 7th Peters, p. 633, on tnis Ar' Oorph
commented at some length. -, ., :;
proper court to revise the proceedings had be-
fore supreme Judge in chambers, it was clear
that the Legislature established certain infe-
rior courts, among which, to oil intents and
nnrnoses was one in which supreme Judge
was authorized to sit for specific purposes.
Its iurisdiction was limited, for it embraced
tbe issI1ing of writs OF injunction, 1nandaTnus,
| ouo 1Dd,rdnto and hdbedS corpus. 1t was not
branch OF the Circuit Court and 1t was not
coual to the Supreme Court, yet it possessed
cerfain iudical functions. 1t was, therefore,
an inferior court, over which ths Supreme
Court has q supervisory power. That being
demonstrated, il follows that this special exer-
else of judicial authority, no matter now coll
ferrcd, must be examined in this court.
AJr. Campbell followc !, but his argument! on
tho points submitted anl above discussed IS
such a mass OF logic that no brlei synopsis
would convey q proper idea OF LIS Hue oI
thought. c.,., ,,;5
that one of the consiIcratlo introduces was
that q proposition wa5 pendlug to settle thIs
question:. Speaking for the State, he was pre-
nared to say that the State sees no prospect
II any successful result from pending neSotla-
tions. and. further. that the only way III whlch
to secure q successful negotiation was 10 press
| tine case now. o,:e 1.;o
In rendering his decision, CHIEF Justice
Moses said he concurred in so much as declares
tb,t the Judgment OF an associate justice at
chambers can only be examined and revised by
tins court. Whether it is to be done by writ
NJ error or ON more motion to revise, it was not
necessary ia decide. The effect to both par
ties would be the same, for the case Is mere
the record is. here, aud the matters assigned Us
error are in definite form prescnt"u lo tne
court. A., o,,;,,;o, - +,o