The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-02-25
THE CASE OF HON. ALFRED HUGER
A Reply to the Letter of United States
District Attorney Corbin.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEWS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEWS.
The letter of Mr.. Corbin was the subject of con-
sideration by US on the day Of its publication, and
we were OF opinion that no reply was necessary,
because we do not suppose that any one thinks
we stimulated the notices Of Mr.. Huger's case
which Mr.. Corbin seems to be dissatisfied with
and because we are employed to defend Mr.
Huger and maintain his rights before the courts,
and not before the people.
The courts have thus far sustained US, and our
client, to whom we are responsible, has not yet
complained that we have been or are negligent Of
our duties to him.
1t is Mr.. Corbin who charges rs with ''ne0li
gence," and complains Of the consequences, not
Mr.. Huger. We, therefore, did not think 1t neces-
sary to vindicate ourselves The difference be-
tween Mr.. CorbIn and ourselves seems to be mere
lY this: He Is dissatisfied, and complains OF the
success Of our "negligence." We are satisfied,
and do not complain Of the failure OF his vigil
lance.
But INQUIRIES have been made and opinions ex-
pressed by persons whose judgment we greatly
value inducing US to recur to Mr. Corbin's letter,
and see whether he has dealt fairly with Judge
Bryan, by a correct statement Of the facts Of the
case. and we are constrained to say that Mr.. Cor.
bin has not fully stated the facts 1t Is therefore,
due from us, as professional obligation, that the
case In which We are engaged shall not be mis-
stated OF shortstated to the prejudice OF learn
ed and faithful Judge, who cannot, according to
established good taste, vlndlcate himself through
the newspapers.
Mr. Corbin states that the trouble in his case Is
that "Mr. Huger's counsel neglected to enter up
| a Judgment upon the verdict rendered under the
ruling OF Judge Bryap;n that his record was has.
tily made up and sent to the Supreme Court; that
the fact of our negligence and Its effect upon his
case was discovered at this last term OF that
| court; that the court sent down certtordrt,
| and the return to 1t did not help him. that Mr..
| Huger's counsel were requested, but would not
help him; that they persmptorily declined to
| cure their negligence and enter the judgment
necessary to save his side Of the case; and that
! rsereupon application was made to his Honor,
Judge Bryan, to order an entry OF Juogmen''
| and he declined to do So" [The italics are Df.
Corbin's.l Now, If Mr. Corbin had merely ADDED
| the words-"because II appeared that he, Judge
BYyan had no .,otoer or authority to do Uhot
! ,oas asked or hfu,"-there would have been no
misstatement, or slort-statement; no injustice TO
| Judge Bryan; and We would have been saved the
| trouble OF writing all this. Judge Bryan had no
more power to help Mr. Corbln than Mr.. Corbtn
had to help himself. But he did show most In
dulgent disposition to do all he could for him.
| He ordered an extra court to hear him, and upon
the hearing 1t became manifest that he had no
lawful authority to galyanize the cause, which
had fallen into allegiance under our neglect, and
Mr. Corbln's chastity made-up record;'' and this
Is Judge Bryan's complete yindicatton.
Mr. Corbin says cat the next term Of the
court the verdict heretofore obtained will either
be set aside or judgment entered, as 1t should
have been two years ago by Mr.. Huger's counsel"
Thank you, Mr.. Corbin, for this information. II
YOU had added as third alternate-"or Mr..
Huoer tofu 90 tottho,t day''-you would have hit
the point We will, at the next term Of the court
| II you please, try conclusions with you on that
| pcint
Mr. Corbin tells US that from his statement, ut
Will be apparent to all that Mr.. Huger, through
his council has expressly REFUSED, and upon pure
~ technical grounds, to allow bis case to come to
trial upon It's merits In the Supreme Court" II
all that be true, II only charges Ar. Huger with
very harmless act. The court would do the same.
Mt Hugers case was tried on It's merits before
the jury. II it were not for somebody's negli-
gerce, it would have been heard before the Su-
preme Court on the ld,p, not on Its merits.
Again, Mr.. corbn says: "If he, tMr. Huger,l or
his counsel, had felt that profound confidence In
the charge OF his Honor, Judge Bryan, why should
they delay,n n&c.' And then, again 'They know
very we'll they have obtained simply delay, and
that the case can and will be In due time again In
the Supreme Court"
The reply to all this is that Judge Bryan's
charge was published at the time OF the trial. and
received the appreciation Of jurists OF the highest
rank in this country, and Of the bar generally.
Mr.. Corbin expresses his own opinion, not
ours when he says we know we have obtained
only "delay." We think We have obtained an
end OF the case and whether it will be in due
time, or ever again, in the Supreme Court, will
not, we think, depend upon his confident pro-
phecies, but upon the due administration OF the
| law.
| AS we have said we do not propose to discuss
Mr.. Huger's case before the people, or to popu-
larise the misadyentures OF the District Attorney
consequent on our sloth and his exemplary haste
We prefer the regular and steady admlnistra.
ton OF the law, by the aid Of judicial proceed
ings. RuTLEDdE 1oUNd,
JAMES B. CAMPBELL,
| or Counsel.
Broad Street, February "a, 1870.
1