The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-07-24

road bankrupt. and to declare that he was
bound to sell out the road to meet the de-
mands of the creditors. But the creditors.
Where were they? We're they in court de-
mandIng that action? No; there were two
men, two petty claimants against the COM
pany, the first with feeble, lame, halting pc.
tition that had to be Withdrawn from the court
to be amended, and which was based upon
few, very few coupons of guaranteed
bonds. The other was claimant upon few
non. mortgage bonds, bonds that were not en-
titled to dollar until every lien was dis.
charged. What did he ask ? He asked that
the debts of the road be piled up and the as
sets of the road be dragged down to show that
| 1t was bankrupt, and by that means he pro-
posed to make his pltlful non-m mortgage bonds
more valuable The fallacy of the PROPOSE
tion appeared on the face of 1t. To that pro.
position, therefore, they opposed themselves,
and the first grounds Of their objection were
to the Jurisdiction of the court. He read from
the eleventh article of the Constitution If the
United States as follows: "The judicial power
of the United States shall not be construed to
extend to any suit in law or equity COM
menced or prosecuted against one of the
United States by citizens of another State, or
BY citizens or subjects of any foreign State"
The authority Of Congress, as expressed
pared with that fundamental contract between
the United States, and his Honor would we'll
recollect, as reader of history, the peculiar
circumstances under which that eleventh
article was inserted In that compact. If,
therefore, 1t were shown that the United
States Court was brought into direct contro-
versy with the State OF South Carolina, 1t
would be plain that that court would be
powerless to act. He begged the court to
observe that before those proceedings had
been Instituted In that court the State OF
of South Carolina, In her sovereign capacity,
was proceeding In her own court of full and
competent Jurisdiction to the adminlstra.
tIon-of questions which we're vital issues In
that case. The State had propouuded the
question whether the endorsement of the
comptroler-gen eral on the second mortgage
bonds had given to their holders a title
prior to that Ct the security which
the State still b eld. The State held the first
statutory lien; then the Legislature passed the
consolidation act, giving the second mortgage
priority over that lien, and the State submit.
ted to the court the question: "Hew stand
these conflicting claims" Gould his Honor
adjust that question without bringing the
State to the bar of his court And if not, how
Tt
lmposslblllty. Under the proceedings In the
State Court, the court had directed all the
creditors to come forward and present their
claims before its referee. His Honor would
have to make similar order, but could
he bring the State before his officer That
State did not Invite the strong hand of the
United States Court to bear down on her and
crush and bend her lower than she ls. That
State was shorn of its prestige and power.
torn, mutilated, disagured aud MANNED, but
1t was still State, aud still had that guar
anty of the eleventh article of the United
States Constitution as fully as though
1t were rich and strong like New York, Ohio
or Pennsylvania. The omission Of that class
of cases from the operations of the bankrupt
law showed that, notwithstanding the political
complexion Of the United States Congress, 1t
still respected that clause of the United States
Consultation. It had been said that these pro-
ceedlngs would Involve no interference with
the State, but the Injunction of the court, If the
road were decreed bankrupt, must be laid
upon an officer Of the State-upon the attor
ney-general OF the State. Would bis Honor
say to Mr. Chamberlain, "Go no farther ~
Suppose, then, that the Governor appointed
another attorney-general, and another and
another, until one was found who said: II
will go on; l will not be restrained y
How, then, would the court restrain him 7
By nothing short of a direct con.
flct OF Jurisdiction. Or suppose the
Governor presented himself 10 his
capacity of Governor. All the courts of
the United States united in saying that he
could not be touched In that capacity. He
would be but poor reader of legal history
who had not been struck by the fact that the
best and most honored Judges were those who
had constantly said forbear when there arose
q seeming conflict OF authority. Such had
been the practice throughout the world wher-
ever law was kfown. He did not know what
action would be taken by the courts Of South
Carolina in the event Of interference by that
court, but 1t did seem to him that they would
be in the highest degree recreant to their
duty should they forbear to still assert their
jurisdiction, or should they relax for
one instant their hold upon the case.
Mr.. Magrath continued his argument
against the Jurisdiction of the court upon the
three grounds that such an assumption If
Jurisdiction would affect the State In her
sovereign capacity, would affect the proper.
ty which was fully under the control OF the
State court, and would affect issues which were
fully trlable in the State court. He quoted
large number of authorities in support Of
these positions, and continued bis argument
until the hour of adjournment. The case will
be resumed this morning, Mr.. Magrath con-
tinulng his argument. after which Mr.. Corbin
will close the argument on behalf of the peti-
TONERS.
NOTES OF TIE CAMPAIGN
A Pervert In New York.
New YORK, July %.
g. T. Streeter has resigned from the Liberal