The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 1850-1873, 1873-02-28
Chancellor Fleming and The
TOrheIs Issue.


The redemption of the ''TOrbeLt Is
sue'' of Tennessee Money is at present
attracting more attention than anything
else. 1t is on every mind and in every
mouth. We have heretofore referred to
this matter through the public channel
but a single time Then we expressed
ourselves as opposed to burdening the
State with the redemption of the issue
CT money in reference, tor reasons Their
given. Since that time we have
been silent upon the subject, tor the
reason that discussion would not affect
the matter one way or the Other-what
was considered q test case being then
before the courts. About three weeks
ago a case was to have been heard by
Chancellor w. L. COOPER, but being the
attorney for the State in the matter, was
not competent to try the case. In con-
sequence of this faCt, Chancellor FLEM
INC4 OF this place, was called upon to
ait on the case. lie had been in the
habit OF hearing cases for Chancellor
COOPER, i'll cases where he was not com
peient to sit. lie happened to be in the
Chancery Court room one day, when he
was approached by The alto -neys repre-
senting both sides of the case, and was
asked then and there to give bis deciS-
ion in the matter, for or against, they
didn't care which, az the object was to
get the case before the Supreme Court
But having some pride in rendering a
decision il cOnSOnance with the facts,
and being then on his way to the depot
he preferred taking tho papers homo,
and give the facts 2 careful COnSidera-
;l0n. These are the reasons, and the
only reasons, why Judge FIEHING haI'-
pened to sit on the case in question
lie gave Al elaborate opinion, in which
lie gave Il as his decision that the State
FOR giving this decision, the Memphis
hrJiGpckS charges the Judge with cor
ruutiou, aud collision with the holders
Of this money. These who are opposed
10 rodeCmiug tho money admit that I'M
der the circumstances aud facts before
him, lie could not, under the law, have
given any other decision; but beside this,
il matters not what the facts of the case
before him were, there - not Lying
Tuan who knows Judge FLEMING, who
would for a moment believe him guilty
Is! any act in the least dishonest or dis
honorable, and any insinuatlOn to this
effect would be hurled back into the
teeth of the insiuuator, 5y this entire
community. lie f. iTrcDruachable and
above suspicion. We deem no defense I
al his character necessary wher5 he is I
known, but by the ingenious, but !
not ingeBHouS, statement liz the Mem !
phis 4 UdidRc&e, those who do not know |
him might be incliGcl TO impeach him. /
No man in the county sustains u better /
character for purity and nobility of puT- /
nose, uprixhtness, integrity and homes /
IL. But beyond thts, let us look at the /
reason of the thing. 1t is charged that |
Judge FLEMING is the tather-in-law Of |
Col. ID. Il. COOPER, and the brOther-in- /
law OF J0IIN FEIERsoN, our FlOater, |
and that they are large holders of this
money, and on this account Judge |
FLEMING gave his decision, so As, at one
stroke. to make them rich. To men
who do not think, but take in every
statement juat as il is made, this would
seem deeply laid plot against the State.
But a moments reelection viii show the
whole affair up in most absurd and
ridiculous light. III ne were a knaVe,
his experience rs a lawyer, would have
taught him that the State would most
Sssuredly appeal from his decision, TO
the Supreme Court, and certainly a
Chancellor would know that the very
minute the appeal bond was made out
and delivered, his decision would be as
entirely abTogated Is if 10 had never
given il. With these facts staring him
in the face, would he have been so ut
tellV silly as TO engage in'so impiOus
scheme OF corruption, knowing at the
same time tbat il could not possibly re-
suit IN any good to his friends? SuCh a
course DN such a man would be militant
against reason.
SO lar as The lmputatiOEs against Col
COurER and Mr.. FRiERSON are concern
ell, neither holds an office that could
affect the final decision of the matter in
the least, ard il they owned every dol
lar ever issued, they could not he at
tainted with dishonesty on that ac-
count. They have rs honorable and Just
a right TO speculate in that issue of mon
o,- as they have in mules or cotton.
we are opposed to the redemption of
the Torbett Issue, if il can be legally
prevented, but we are equally opposed
20 unfair and unfOunded imputations I
against the character Of honest men.