The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1872-02-09
COLUMBIA. s. C.
Fri1ay Morning, February 8. 1872.
Mr.. Chamberlain and tho spartanburS
and Union Railroad.

mr.. Chamberlain and the Sparta nbars
and Union Railroad.
We have delayed to notice the Letter
OF Mr.. Attorney General chamberlain
in reply to an article of ours of Sunday
last, not from disinclination, as the
ring organ would insinuete, to correct
any misstatements we may have made;
for We are aware of none that the article
in question contained, nor does Mr..
Chamberlain himself allege or complain
of any. Our delay is attributable to
causes unconnected with the letter, aud
of no public concern.
That which has eIicited response
from the gentleman, who is 30 wont to
claim refuge in his ''pride OF personal
. character" when his official conduct OF
misconduct subjects him to the indig-
nant condemnation of the public, was
our effort to fasten upon him in paruou-
lar the responsibility for the loss that
the State might incur by reason Of the
sale Of the Spartanburg and Union Rail-
road, under proceedings instituted by
him as attorney for the State. Mr.
Chambe1lain's letter sounds we'll enough,
and is worthy OF the ingenious sophistry
of the man that "pulled the wool" over
even Reverdy Johnson's sharp eyes, but
he his failed in this instan to make
out his case to the Satisfaction of our
selves, md the public, to whom he pro-
posed to submit his justification.
The relation of Mr.. Chamberlain to
the State is that Of attorney to client,
and in the transaction Of the State g
business, he is invested with the same
powers, owes the same duty, and is re-
sponsible, to the same extent, for the
protection of interests that are entrusted
to his charge as any legal adviser would
be to his private client. We respect
fully submit" to him whether that is not
fair and just assumption. Now, he
claims that he was not charged with any
other and further duty in the matter Of the
Spartanburg and Union Railroad than
''to enforce the rights OF tho State under
the statutory mortgage" and that ho
could not reasonably or justly be ex-
pected to doanything more than to bring
the road to sale. What earnest and
honorable practitioner would deem that
he had filed tho measure Of his obliga-
tion to his client, in similar case to this,
when he had simply recoTsred judgment,
issued execution and brought the pro-
perty to sale7 Would he withhold his
further advice and counsel? and in the
event that his client was incapacitated to
act for himself, as was the State here, or
ignorant Of the dangers that attended
the sale, would he take no steps to
advise him of his peril, and to instruct
him as to the means by which his losses
might be avoided or mitigated? Mr..
Chamberlain may have complied with
the strict letter of the special ACT au-
thorizing and requiring him to bring the
road to sale, but he has failed to do bis
whole duty, and even to effect the
ostensible purpose for which tho ACT was
designed.
The Act. by its title, purports to pro-
vide for the protection of the interes
Of the State in certain railroads. Then
we should feel under obligations to the
astute Mr. Chamberlain, if he will show
us in what way the State has been bene-
titad, or her interests protected. by the
sale OF the Spartanburg and Union Rail-
road, for sum far beneath it's value,
and several hundred thousand dollars
short CT tho liability of the State, as
endorser upon it's bonds.
Mr.. Attorney General says, that the
expediency Of the sale. the sulIiciency of
the purchase money to cover the liabili-
ty of the sale. &c., were matters with
which he had nothing more to do than
any other citizen of the State. That is
nonsence. if the learned Mr.. Chamber
lain did say it. He was the attorney OF
the State; he is to receive special fee
for his services in tho particular case.