The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-01-18
THE BANK OF THE STATE,
Proc edings I'm the supreme etsaFft.
THE PROCEEDINGS ON OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES OF
MEssRs. HAYNE AND CAMPBELL.-DEc1sIoN OF
THE CoURT-THE PROCEEDINGS ON SATURDAY.

IFRoM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
COLUMBIA, January 16, 1869.--It is now three
days since counsel commenced their, heavy
skrmishing in the Supreme Court eyer the
Bank Of the State, and yet the battle has scarce-
ly begun. The proceedings of Thursday have
been before you. On Friday Mr.. Hayneatarted
out with three points l. That the cause was
not docketed in accordance with the ruls Of the
court, which declares that all appeals shall be
docketed the first term of the Appeal Court af-
ter they are decided and on or before tls sitting
OF the court. 1t had also been placed on Ito dock
ct without notice to the adverse party. II That
the case in it's present form is not entitled to
place on the docket. It comes up byswrt Of
error, aud the right to that writ does rk apply
in the case Of a Judge OF the Suprenla Court
sitting at chambers. The only idea o$a writ
of error we have is q writ to superior from an
inferior court. What are inferior courtsY They
are described in the constitution to be the Cir
cult Court, Probate Court, and Justicessof the
Peace. In an act of the present Legislature
entitled can act to organize the Etpreme
Court" it is declared that "each or the Justi-
ces of the Supreme Court shall have ,aawer to
issue writs OF injunction, ndndaanus, quo aU1r-'
ronto: habeas corpus, and other remedlaa writs,
subject to.re-examination, affirmance OF rever-
sal, and final adjudication by the propsr juris-
diction."
Did the constitution or the Legsla tlEe con-
template that o single judge of the supreme
Court, hearing one Of these motions At. cham
bers was thereby constituted an inferior court
Most assuredly not for in that case fietwould
descend to the level Of o magistrate; tk ; appeal
LsJ srs<> t<k1
and from thence by writ OF error theS cause
would come before the Supreme Bench such
au idea is inconsistent with the gonerai .-srene
OF the Judiciary department. It wouaa be one
stitution, because it would be an invitation to
indirect practices aud corruptio ion. lt il was
desiyed to get rid of A sppremet ju1a 1asa under
such q Gonstr,ictien ssptilirla ysoalgi ssisr
and then resist his hearing the M3N4 question
on the bench, after which some other person
may be commissioned to fill his place. If the
court reach the conclusion that the writ of
error does not lie in cases of this sort, but that
another mode is provided by which any error
in the judgment OF a supreme judge sitting at
chambers may be re-examined and revised,
our third proposition is established, namely,
that there Is nothing in tha nature Of the 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 hearing Of
the preliminary motion to q lash the writ Of
error, said be could not sis in the capacity of q
judge as to his own qualifications.
MIR. Hayne accordingly waived this point, and
proceeded to enlarge upon the proposition that
there is no writ OF error from q judge Of the
Supreme Court sitting at chambers, but that
after he has decided upon one OF these reme-
dial writs, it shall, upon motion before him. be
subject to reorganization, afarmance or re-
versal, and final adjudication by the proper ju-
risdiction. However strange it might appear,
it was clearly the law enacted that the case
should go to the Circuit Court for decision.
MIR. Cerbin followed in reply. This case was
quoted does not apply to it. 1t remains, there
fore, with The court to determine whether the
exercise OF its discretionary power was correct.
The case was not docketed on the first day of
not be heard, and as under the law we are en-
titled to writ Of error at any time within
year, the court exercised its own convenience.
The Chief Justice remarked that when he
be the practice to allow cases to be docketed
at any time without any regard to the question
whether they would try it at the same term or
not.
question 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
appeal will not lie, is emphatically settled by
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 law in
the Circuit Court, but still the question remains,
how can we get the record from an inferior
court7 The common law practice, so far as we
know, says by writ Of error. or BY a dcerliorari.
The first is the true mode. The Supreme
Court Of the United States have adjudicated
this question in the Gaze Of J. w. Ward and b.
X. Gail, 7th Peters, p. 633. On this MIR. Corbin
commented at some length.
AS to the point raised, whether this is O
proper court to revise the proceedings had be-
fore q supreme judge in chambers. it was clear
that the Legislature established certain nfe-
rior courts, among which. to all intents and
purposes, was one in which supreme Judge
was authorized to sit for specific purposes.
It's juriadiction was limited, for it embraced
the issuing Of writs OF injunction, anayadGnsus,
quo ssdyrd7t0 and hdbeGs corpus. It was not
q branch OF the Circuit Court, and it was not
equal to the Supreme Court, yet it possessed
certain judicial functions. It was, therefore,
an inferior court, over which the Supreme
Court has a. supervisory power. That being
demonstrated, it follows that this special exer-
else OF judicial authority, no matter how con-
ferred, must be examined in this court.
Mr.. Campbell foltowe l., but his argument on
tho points submitted and above discussed is
such mass Of logic that no brief synopsis
would. convey proper idea Of his line Of
thought.
Mr.. Chamberlain, the Attorney General, said