The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-02-01
THE LaURENs RAILRoAD.
Another Small Job, Afoo'

The Laurensvlle Herald throws some light
upon the Eaurens Railroad squabble, In which
the Radical officials are figuring. Waterman,
who is not known in Laurcns, is the brother
in.law of Governor Scott, the same person who
went to work with pick and spade on the
Stump House Tunnel to keep the Blue Ridge
contractors from forfeitlng their bargain, and
the Identical individual who assured his init
mate friends that Robert tx. Scott) had South
Carolina in sling. The Herald says:
A, previously announced. the above road
and ali the property of the corporation has
been ordered to be Sold When the order Of
sale originally was made by Judge 7. o. P.
Vernon. the naming of a receiver was left for
n fitIre time. with the understanding that
counsel representing the various parties to the
plpadlngs should be consulted. Now itappears
that on the er partc application of D. II. Cham,
bcrlain, Attorney General, representing the
Slate, an order has been signed by Judge Yer
non, appointing one George w. Waterman the
receiver, and requiring him to enter into bond
The road Is ordered to be sold on the 3Oth Of
March next.
Waterman has filed his bond with the clerk
of the court for this county In the sum oil
ssh. 900. with R. Il. Scott, Phincas NJ. FrazcC
and Joseph Crews as his surcties. The eXect
tion of tho hnnd hy these parties Is sworn tc
peIOre y. III. Chambcriuln, NDtuTy Ill0HC, D
c. Thus It appears that MIR. Chamberlain rep
rescnts, in his own person.. The highest lcsa
Office of the State, and ut the same time one
of the most dimnutive Of legal departments
that of notary pubc-not notary for any par
tjcular county, however, but for the entire
State of South Carolina. This is surely big
commission for q notary.
Waterman is not known here, but 1t Is be.
licyed that he Is q capet-bagger and closely
associated with r. h. Scott. Scotts name fol
lows OIL the bond, and his name on an $4,000
bond NAV save the Slate and parties concern
cd harmless. This remains to be seen, how
eyer FraZcc is not known; Joseph Crew!
holds no property and pays no taxes, except
on his poll-at least this was the case not long
since.
Hitherto in similar cases it had been com
mon law and invariablc custom TOR the clerk o
the court to approve all bonds required in le
rul proceedings. In this Instance, the bond Is
filed with the following endorsement:
al appr0ve the form and execution OF the With
III o0''0' a." 'N' e'''' T. O. p. VERNON,
Judge Seventh Circut.n
This unusual course was no doubt taken II
view of the fact that the clerk of the court fol
Lanrcns is a very prudent, honest man, ant
the parties in interest apprchcndcd that III
would have the bond beyond all doubt. before
filing il with his approval.
The sale of this road Is job OF few thou
sands, and Scott & Co. must necessarily re
ceiye the commissions and stcallngs appertaln
inr to the Office of salesman ana receiver
Tie receiver will have the election of an auc
lonccr, and thus the road becomes nccessa
rily the prey of the Scott party.
The I.aurens Railroad Is 4 district and Statt
institution, and the receiver certainly shonlC
have been selected from citizens OF the Stale
Mcssrs. Haync, of Charleston, McGowan, o
Abbcvillc, Sullivan and Simpson IL simpson, o
I.anrcns, represent the various parties to the
proceeding, and they most assllrcdly shoult
have been consulted in the choice OF the party
TO br receiver. while wc are assured That sucl
has not been the case The whole thing smells
strongly Of Radical highway robbery.
Has r. X. Scott any tangible property IN
South Carolina? Has r. X. Scott any visible
property in South Carolina, save n carprt-bas
anything that IL sheriff can find. in case Water
man yamonscs with the proceeds OF this ole
sale?
Did not R. X. Scott, through Joseph Crews
his agent, purchase some OF the rolling stool
of this company at a recent sale? Is the sale
Scott not really party in the matter IN iitiSa
ton. and has not Judge Vernon admitted {
marty lit.ant TO be surety for receiver wht
sholild be disintcrcstcd and independent o
all parties interested, in the event of the pend
ing suit
Should not a bond, made payable to -
Clerk of Court of Laurcns County, be approx
ed by said clerk ? May not the attorneys wht
have not been consulted ask for additional
surety by the receiver Who can they ask. 4:
the Circuit Judge is cstopped by his origina
jurisdiction in approving the bond in the frs
instance Does it not look like sharp praclic,
on the part of Chamberlain, Waterman, Scot
& Co, to get their bond filed with the clerk in
the shape approved as aforesaid, with the view
to claim hereafter that the act Of filing wa;
virtual approval