The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1869-02-11
A Card.
To tie People Of Richlcnd County:

Card.
To tie People Of Richlcnd County:
1t may be considered grave matter to
question the presentments of Il Grand Jury;
but am compelled in self-defcnce to notice
certain allegations, made against me, as a
County officer, in tho presentment pub
lished in the Picnic on Wednesday morn
ing.
Let me here promise that do not in
tend, in the remarks [ may make, to i'm
pugn the motives or integrity of the gentle
men romr osing the jury, rs they base their
accusations upon information received by
them. What that information was T. Of
course, have no means Of knowing, nor had
l any opportunity of meeting the charges
brought against me, nor do I know whether
the information was derived from sworn
witnesses or picked up indiscriminatcly.
Bat to the facts upon which I rest my de-
fence as a Magistrate The first charge
alleges that l collected fees III State eases
in advance; that 'thesc fees were illegal
being higher than those prescribed by law;
that such n course was in violation of the
Acts of 1927 and 1899. 1t is further alleged
that 1 have refused to issue warrants where
the fees were not paid in advance, thereby,
in some instances, stopping Justice" The
facts as regards these charges, and upon
which desire to justify, are simply these:
That the collection of fees, and the rates,
were in strict accordance with an agreement
made by the three acting Magistrates of
this city Mt the time it was made-which
agreement was signed by Magistrates Walker,
Nash and myself, and was rigidly ad-
tO loto 1u.1 ~ l.
by all three of the parties. The agreement
was made while the State was under mill
tary rule-utterly impoverished; in short
when there was no State, and was approved
by the only authority to whom we could
then appeal-the Military Commandant of
the Post.
AS to the charge that L refused to issue
warrants, solemnly aver, to the best of my
knowledge and recollection, that I never
refused to issue warrant when the prose
cutor was unable to pay fee; and this
can prove by young man who was at all
times in my Office. Further, as regards this
charge, it is passing strange if 1 had refused
to issue warrants that the large majority of
the bills returned by the Grand Jury, at this
session, are from the cases filed by me in
the Office of the Clerk of the Court. When
it is remembered that there are four other
Magistrates acting in this city alone, be-
sides large number in other sections in
the County, it would appear that instead Of
withholding warrants L must have been
very Jealous in procuring cases. In this
connection beg leave to say that 1 firmly
believe have done more gratuitous Office
business for the poorer and humber classes
than any other Magistrate, and perhaps
more than all of them put together. 1t has
been my constant aim, in this regard, to pro-
tect the rights and interests Of the humble
laboring clnsses, 50 far as the law could pro-
tect them.
With regard to violation of the Acts of
1927 and 1889, in relation to the collection
OF fees from the prosecutor, / quote the
following paragraph from the Act Of 1910:
'In criminal cases, the fees of Magistrates
and Constables must be paid by the defend
ent if found guilty; if not guilty or the pro-
ceedings be stopped at the instance of the
State, or the Grand Jury find no bill, or
the Attorney nolle pros, or the defendent
is unable to pay, then, if the said costs
hare not been paid dy Me prosecutor, they
will be paid by the State" This clearly
shows that it is not illegal to collect the
costs from the prosecutor. BY the argu-
ments made by the Magistrates of this city,
the State has been saved large amount of
costs on assault and battery cases, and such
like
AS regards the charges made against me
as Coroner: If L were unfit for the office, it
is strange that / should be elected to that
position by majority of 1 100 votes in o