The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-03-11

swer any and every allegation contained IN
the resolutions, so far as they related 10 MS
judicial action in the case, and requested the
most thorough Investigation. .'.a.
Your committee examined but two witnesses
in the case, Mr.. Jervey, the author OF the reg
olution charging your committee with this In
vesliSation. and E. B. Seabrook, ESQ.,, sollcl-
tor oi the ,First Judicial Circuit, who was OF
Conclusion of the testimony Of Mr.. seabrook,
Judge Graham, through his friend, the Hon.
T. Y. Simons, preferred to the committee q
COPY of his charge to the jury empanelled to
try the case, certified to as correct by B. G.
Shaffer, stenographer to the First judicial CIT
cult; and also q letter from the Hon. T. ".
Seymour, who was also of counsel for the
plaintiffs.
In submitting the testimony and accom-.
panying documents to the consideration OF the
House Of Representatives., your commltCee
feel themselves constrained to express tne
regret that mere passing conversauon oS.
reference to the caseof Redding ct ux, should
have been the occasion OF preferrlng to the
House charges of corruption and bad faith"
against Judge Graham and the under OH
GERS of his court. If members OF the House
viii read carefully the testimony Of Messrs
Jervey and Seabrook, and which your COM
mittee do not feel called upon nor inclined to
review, they will readily perceive that the
foundation for this Investigation rests solely
uron the statements made to Mr. jervey oy
Gr. Ssabrook, in conversation, and, as 10
which statements MIR. Seabrook eoemnly
afirms he was misunderstood.
Without quoting the evidence OF Mr.. Sea-
brook, YOUR committee affirm that, In Ian.
Qaage clear and unmlstakable, he fully and
completely eXonerates Judge Granam rom tne
charge that his s'bearing, instructions and
rulings to the Jury, and towards the counsel OF
the plaintiffs" wrought denial OF justice 10
the plaintiffs.
With the rulings of Judge Graham your
committee have nothing to do, nor can the
General Assembly rlghtfully bring them under
review. 1t belongs to the Supreme Court
alone to review them. 1t did 80, and found
no error In Judge Graham's statement OF In Iae
cheney of the evidence 10 send the case to the
fury. and ordered new trial. Upon such re-
hearing OF the case, Judge Graham did no
more than state the law TO the jury 10 the ex'
act 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 left, as they ever should De, to
apply the evidence and render verdict.
With that verdict we can have nothing TO do
II there was any suspicion that their verdict
was improperly Influenced In any manner, Mr
Seabrook sets the suspicion at rest when, IN
answer to question by Mr. Whipper, DO
YOU. mean public opinion, by outside ipfu-
ences p he answered, II do, and believe the
woman suffered by 1t"
In all this yonr committee find nothing to
attaint the verdict of the jury. ltis ouly MIR.
Saabrook's belief, honestly entertained, no
doubt. but no sufficient cause to brand the
Jury with infamy. Perhaps ffty men could be
found who entertain different belief. and
your committee know Of no rule by which TO
estimate the force Of public opinion upon q
jury.
onerates the sheriff and jury commissioners t o.
Charleston County from any tmpulatlon OF
Thus your committee find that they have
been grayey called upon to inVesugate-
nothing. CO
In conclusion, your committee would re-
mark that the enacting Of this farce, expen-
sIve though it be, will not tall of producing
good results, If for the future 1t shall stacd as
q beacon light to warn the House OF Repre-
seHlalives against any investigation into the
rulings of Judges or the verdict OF juries.
These matters. OF right, belong to the Circuit
theE; without infringing upon the indepen-
dence OF the judicial department OF the gov
ernment, and weakening public confidence IN
the administration of justice. This is danger.
Gus ground to tread upon, and II the House
will rashly intrude thereupoD, the lndepen.
dence OF that branch of the government 10 at
an end, and It will not be long until every
Judge Of character and capacity will desert the
bench. Respectfully submitted,
Signed: Warren D. Wilkes, chairman; w.
J. Whipper, G. g. Bowen, Samuel J. Lee, F.
q. Frost, B. A. Bascomb, D. r. Duncan, John
G. Sellers, A. z. Holmes.
This report was accompanied by the testi-
mony of the only. two witnesses examined,
Messrs. Jervey and sesbrook, which was or
dered to be printed aI:t ns distributed among the
members for their information. The report
had no sooner been read than q motion was
made by Mr.. Hurley that all record of charges,
Investigation and report be expupged from
the journals of the House. The speaker, how
ever, in putting the motion, reminded the
members that the House owed duty to Itself
to zee that the record of Its action in the mat
Ter was preserved; charges OF q most grave
ond serious nature had been formally made In
the House against high judicial officer of the
State, and the House had taken formal action
thereupon, and Justice to the judge who mad
been accused, and to the House Itself, de-
manded that the report Of the committee,
which was vindication not only of the in
tegrity of the Judge, but oil the desire Of the
House to deal justly and honoraoly In the
premises, should be recorded. Mr. Hurley's
motion was then put and lost by decided
majority.
Mr.. Jeryey said that he desired to make q
statement upon this Subject when 1t should
come up for formal consideration, but the re.
port Of The committee having inst been recelv.
ed, he desired a little time to examine the re-
port and read over the testimony. he had
been placed in false position as member of
the House, but he was prepared to substan.
tiate the fact that every statement he had
made had come from Mr.. seabrook: By the
testimony of MI. Seabrook, the veracity of his
.statements as q member of the House had
;been impugned, and he desired an opportuni
,ty to defend himself.
~ hon nn0upd Tn mol q Tho ypk ole
mailer the special order for tomorrow, q.
p. H., which motion was carried.
and that was In error in stating recently
in this correspondence that General Conner
The fact appears TO be that the General was Ii
Coinmbia on business of his owD, and wa
Summoned to the investigation as witness
whose testimony might possibly be required
bnt the investigation having 30 sudden and g
farcical an end, there was no occasion Tor nj
a considerable quantity of important bus'