The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1872-03-10

with the duty Of investigating certain
rumored irregularities upon the trial OF
the case Of Vim. F. Redding. ct ur
against the South Carolina Railroad
Company, in the Circuit Court, at
Charleston. before the Hon. r. F. Gra-
ham, reported, through their Chairman,
w. y. Wilkes, Esq, as follows:
That from the very grave nature Of
the allegations against Judge Graham,
and by implication. though not named,
against the Sheriff and Jury Commits.
sioner Of Charleston County, your Com
mittee notified Judge Graham that they
would prucssd with the investigation on
the 7th: day Of March, and at the same
time despatched q sergeant alarms to
summon before the Committee the She
riff and Jury Commissioner of Charles
ton County, and some twenty other wit
neesee, whose names were furnished by
tho author Of the resolutions. Judge
Graham promptly appeared before your
Committee, announced his readiness to
answer any and every allegation con-
tanned in the resolutions; so far as they
related to his judicial action in the case,
and requested the most thorough inves-
tigntion.
Your Committee examined but two
witnesses in the case-Mr. Jervey, the
author of the resolution charging your
Committee with this investigation. and
E. B. Seabrook, Esq, Solicitor of the
First judicial Circuit, who was of coun-
sci for VIM. T. Redding, et ur. At the
conclusion OF the testimony Of Mr.. Sea.
brook, Judge Graham, through his
friend, the hon. T. Y. Simons, prof.
fered to the Committee copy of his
charge to the jury empaneled to try
the cave, certified to as correct by B. Il.
Shaffer. SteDographer to the First Judi
oial Circuit, and also letter from the
Hon: r. W. Seymour, who was also Of
counsel for the plaintiffs.
In submitting the testi mony and ac-
companying documents to- the considera.
ton Of the House of Representatives,
your Committee feel themselves con-
strained to express theregret that mere
passing conversation between Mr.. Jer-
vey and Mr.. Seabrook, with reference to
the case of Redding, ct nc, should have
been made the occasion OF preferring to
the House charges of corruption and
bad faith" against Judge Graham and
the under officers of his court. If mem
bers OF the House will read carefully the
testimony Of Messrs. Jervey and Sea-
brook, and which your Committee do
not feel called upon or inclined to re-
view, they will readily perceive that the
foundation for this investigation rests
solely upon the statements made to Mr..
Jervey by Mr.. Seabrook, in conversa-
tion, and as to which statements Mr..
Seabrook solemnly affirms he was mis-
understood.
Without quoting the evidence Of Mr..
Seabrook, your committee affirm that, in
language clear and unmistakable, he fully
and completely exonerates Judge Gra-
ham from the charge that his "bearing,
instructions and rulings to tho jury, aud
toward the counsel of the plaintiffs. "
wrought as denial of justice to the plain
tiffs
With the rulings Of Judge Graham,
your Committee have nothing to do, nor
can the General Assembly rightfully
bring them under review. It belongs to
the Supreme Court alone to roview them.
1t did 80, and found no error in Judge
Graham'H statement Of the law; it only
differed with him as to the sufficiency OF
the evidence to send the case to the Jury,
and ordered new trial. Upon such re.
hearing Of the case, Judge Graham did
no more than state the law to the jury,
in the exact language OF the Supreme
Court. In this he certainly could not,
and did not. act in bad faith. The law
having been stated to the jury, they
were lett. IA they ever should be, to ap
ply the evidence and render verdict.
With that verdict we have nothing to do
II there was any suspicion that theil
verdict was improperly influenced in any
manner, Mr.. Seabrook sets the suspicion
at rest, when, in answer to question by
Mr.. Whipper, "Do you moan public
opinion, by outside inf1uence?" he an
swered. II do, and believe the woman
suffered by it,
In all this. your Committee find no
thing to attaint tho verdict of the jury
It is only Mr.. Seabrook's belief. honestly
entertained no doubt, but no sufficient
cause to brand the jury with infamy
Perhaps fifty men could be found wht
entertain q different belief. and you
Committee know of no rule by which t.
estimate tho force OF public opinion
upon jury: The testimony Of Mr.
Seabrook also fully exonerates the She
riff and Jury Commissioners of Charles
ton County from any imputation O
official misconduct. Thus, your Com
mittee find that they have been gravel,
called upon to Notwithstanding
In conclusion. your Committee woult