The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-07-23

return tney naQ maQe 10 LQe peLlLl0Q, ana sup
ported each of them with argument and au-
thorites. The first cause urged why the de-
cree should not be granted was, that the Uni
ted States Court had not the right to take cog
niSance of matter which nas at the time in
litigation between State and it's citizens, in
the courts of the State, except In certain cases
specified in the constitution, Of which this was
not one. The State was now suing for the
foreclosure of its mortgage, amounting to
So, 900, 600, and it was certain that the road
would not bring more than that amount at
sale, so that the State was litlgant for the
last possible dollar of the assets OF the road,
There could be no surplus after the State
was satisfied, 80 that If the road were
adIudged bankrupt the court would
have to enjoin the State herself, which
was impossible. he referred TO the case Of The
State of North Carolina against the trustees OF
the University and Dewey, assignee, Is Bank.
Reg, 1867 There it was laid down that the
United States would not take jurisdiction
where the State was plaintiff against Its own
citizens. 1t was not possible to enjoln the
III,
speak, seized the road for claim OF s., ,OOO,o ,oOO,
the court had no process py which 1t could
reach the assets for the other creditors. The
court would thus be making q bankrupt whose
assets it could not touch In law, and calling In
creditors whom 1t could never pay. The
second cause In the return was that,
Inssmuch as the action Of Gibbs ct al
against the road had been Instituted before
the present suit, whereby full Jurisdiction had
been taken of all matters affecting the road.
that the court would not, in the exercise Of
lis judicial discretion. which was not disputed,
interfere In the case. A number OF cases were
cited In support of this position, and the
counsel called attention to the fact that the
other creditors of the road had not seen fit to
Join With the petitioner In his proceeding as
they would have done, had they deemed them
| the best protection for the honest creditors,
but on the contrary had flocked TO the court
In alarm for their own interests and unani
mously opposed the petition. The third cause
was that the case was not yet 10 condition
for the United States Court to interpose, In
ssmuch as the very question Of It's solvency
was even then on trial in the State courts. To
adludge it bankrupt and then proceed
with that examination would be like
hanging a man and trying him after
| ward. It devolved upon the petitioners to
prove the insolvency, and they had not intro
| duced a particle OF evidence either to sustain
the validity of the 81, 400 900 of debt which the
company claimed was fraudulent, or to show
| that, If it were fraudulent, :he company had
not sufficient redress to compel Its restora-
ton. The fourth cause applied to the orisi-
nal petitioner, Scanned, and was to the effect
that the pc titioner had still valid and SUBJ
slsting lien on the road for the amount of hls
claim in the shape OF mortgage and the
guaranty of the State, the mortgage having
already been brought into tie State
Court for foreclosure. Mr.. Rhett then
argued at some length upon the act
ual question as to the solVency or lnsol-
vency of the company. He claimed that It
was not manufa eturer or trader within the
meaning of the act or In the common accepta-
ton of the term, aud that the coupons upon
which the present proceedings were brought
we're not commercial paper. In support OF
these positions, he cited large number OF al
thorlties, and he then proceeded 10 review
| the testimony In the case, which has been
given from day to day In The NEWS. His
argument occupied the court up to the hour
of adjournment, and he will be followed thls
morning on the same side by Mr.. c. D. Mel
ton, oil Columbia, after which the argument
will be continued by Mr.. D. T. Corbn for the
petitioner, and Mr.. A. G. Magrath In opposl-
| ton.