The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-07-25

preVeuI Cei tolu speCdl CIeullOfs llOm COmiuS
in and eating up the assets of the road, and
that, as he understood it, was exactly the
scope and object of the bankrupt act. He
held in his hands $4,000 of the bonds and
coupons Of the company Issued partly
in 1855 and partly in 1858, all having
ten years to run and all long since
past due. Their holders had been for
the past seven years begging the company to
take them up. They were not received on the
market, and their very existence showed the
road to be insolvent. The holders of those
bonds were honest creditors Of that road, and
as such eutited to some respect In that court.
They were not to be told, forsooth, that they
were 10 collision with a set of rascals and
scoundrels. who lately held posses
sion of the road, OF that they were
mere puppets In the hands of those
parties. There was not a particle of evidence
to show that, and all such remarks were
gratuitous and uncalled for. All that ne
knew of them was that gentleman-a
banker-of respectabilty aud responsibility
had placed the bonds in his hands, and direct
ed those proceedings to be Instituted. It had
even been intimated in a newspaper, inno-
Gently, no doubt, that these bonds we're por-
tIon OF those that had been fraudulently ab.
stracted, and that the proceedings had been
instituted in the Interest of parties hostile 10
the road; but that was a total misapprehen-
sion of the facts of the case, the bonds having
been issued long before the war, and before
there were any charges OF fraud in connection
with the company. Mr.. Corbin then recapitu-
lated The points of the petition and of the
reply, and taking up the first subject
In the reply, he argued that the court had ju.
risdlction over the case notwithstanding the
proceedings Instituted by the State as guaran-
Tor, and the fact that the State Court had
taken possession of all the property Of the
road. The bankruptcy act itself, in its first
section, put an end at ence to the hrst
and second counts OF the reply. There 1t was
distinctly said that the United States District
Court should have original Jurisdiction over
all matters of bankruptcy, 10 extend to all
cases between bankrupts and any creditor
who shall claim any debt, 10 the liquidation OF
all liens and other specific claims, and 10 the
adjustment of all priorities. The second mort
gage had been Issued to the State TO
secure its guaranty, and the state,
therefore, had a lien, but what then |?
The act gave them specific authority
to act, and the language of the act
could not have fitted more exactly If 1t
had been made for that case. He claimed
also that the decisions OF the Supreme Court
had set the matter at rest, and he cited the
cases of the United States against Peters, Is
Cranch, 1857 Osborn against the United States
Bank, 70 Wheaton, 1867 Bank Of the United
States against Planters Bank of Georgia, (9
Wheaton, sO4;) Bank Of Kentucky against
Wlster, e Peters, s23.) he claimed that the
State in putting its guaranty upon the oblga-
lions of the road had laid aside its sovereign
capacity and had done that In Its Individual
capacity. In the cases cited. jurisdiction had
been allowed where the Slate had been the
actual owner Of the property, whereas in that
case 1t had only the interest of a mortgage. In
the case of citizen desiring to take advantage
Of the bankrupt act as voluntary bankrupt,
he could not be deprived of that right be-
cause the State hpapeued to be one OF his credl-
tors, and similarly, when such condition OF
affairs was shown as to give creditor the
right 10 put him into involuntary bankruptcy,
he should not be deprived of that right be-
cause the State was also q creditor. He con-
tended that the fact Of the l!tigattons in the
State courts made no difference as to the jurls-
diction. It did not follow that the court
would order those suits to be discontinued. 1t
might go en-, appoint an assignee, and then
direct him to go before those courts and enter
into those liligations, aud await their result.
Mr. Corbn was interrupted at this point BY
by the hou: of adjournment, and will resume
his argument this morning.