The Greenville enterprise. [volume] (Greenville, S.C.) 1870-1873, 1872-09-04

near appeals at laws aud the Chan,
cellors meeting to dispose of ap-
peals in Equity. therefore wrote
to Chancellor Kent, asking him to
give me his views on these impor-
taDt Questions. 10 In reply to my
letter, he kindly wrote me as fol.
lows, but with the injunction that
l. was not to publish, his letter at
that time bnt / can see no iinpro?
i,rietymnew in giving publicity to
the views which he then express
ed. They will be read with inter
est by those who have given any
consideration to the establishment
Of Our. Judiciary system. Mr.. Pet,
igrn was a member of the Legisla-
,ture at that time, and bitterly op,
posed to o,uniting the two fjurisdic
tions in one court. He was en-
pbatically q conservative in all
things, and had the highest regard
for the Epghslysystem OF jurispru
dence. 1 well remember the dis.
satisfaction lie expressed as Chair,
man Of the Judiciary Committee,
when my Bill To- blend the Courts
of Equity and Law came up for
consideration before his Commit.
tee. He said, "Il1ave we at last
come to the humiliation of consid-
ering the question of 'amalgama
tion l'"v w hat would this proud
old conservative lawyer cay now,
if he were alive, to the Radical
changes which have been made in
our laws, our practice and our
courts, under the present regime
in South Carolinaq a.a...9 .r.H ia
N'. New YoaK, Aug. 4. 1886. 3
'" Dear Sir:: l have the pleasure
of acknowledging your obliging
letter of the goth ult, and l should
have done it sooner, had not my
absence from" the city for some
weeks detained the letter from me
until a day or two ago. ...'.." ..
have attended to the questions
you state, but / have a ver& great
reluctance to give my opinions.
unless confidentially y and privately,
on great political and constitution
al points, and measures which are
to undergo public discussion. If
snch questions came befnre me in
any situation and under any char.
ac er in which it became duty 20
speak, no person would do it with
more promptitude and frankness !;
but do not like to be intrusive,
or appear TO set any great value
on my own speculations. The two
questions you state are very grave
and debatable questions The first
question is, whether the Courts of
Law and Equity ought, in sound
wisdom and true policy. to be
blended in the same tribunal,
though under The restriction of
keeping the suits and proceedings
in Law and Equity distinct, as
though they were the records of
two distincr jurisdictions; or whe-
tler they ought to be totally dis,
tinct tribunals, as on the English
model.
Now, I do not think it would be
come me to be dogmatic on this
question. Statesmen are much di
vided in opinion concerning it, and
our opinions are very much the
creatures Of education and prac-
tice. ID ,r- aa sa6a asr. p, -'a8 /.
II was educated in a State which
followed closely the English model
until 1928. and / have tried prac
iically both systems, when kept
perfectly separate, being ten years
Chancellor without any chancery
power in the Sapreme, Court any
more than in, the O., B., and being
ten years Chancellor without any
more connection with or influenced
by Courts of Law than the English
Chancellor. Ii was to be expected
that |, was for that system, and
would be adverse to the scheme
introduced BY the New York Con-
yention, in 1891, of blending the
systems in q partial degree. = My
speeches in that convention were
against it, and they are to be eeen
in n the debates of New York Com
vention, published in 1921. That
convention left the Chancellor as