The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1875-07-20
VOLUME XI-NUMBER 1902

that in October, 1871, SO, 600 was the en-
tire interest on the public debt; the de-
fendant says it wns over $600,O 600 above
the coupons which Ind been presented
for payment; they may say that the de-
fendant must clear this UP, but we say
that he must do SO; this is the issue. If
the defendant shows that the accrued in
terest was largely in excess of the inter-
est paid in 1871, they must show that it
was not; they can't move one step unless
they prove this; for, without proving
this, they cant show single one is not
now there if it ever was there; that Owens
treasury rs vouchers which were dead
when they came there, has nothing to do
with the proof; the defendant is charged
with having taken out good, uncancelled
coupons and not the invalid, dead cou-
pons; this was dragged in to confuse the
jury; nobody could understand case
covered with complex facts and intricate
figures; but he thought he could show
that every coupon which should be there
is there now. The Treasurer, at the end
of every fiscal year, October 81, makes
out general interest account of all the
outstanding indebtedness of the State,
pnid and unpaid; the Comptroller-Gene-
rnl makes out q general interest account
at the beginning c. the year, which he
submits to the Legislature for On appro-
prlation to pay past deficiencies which
appear on the Treasurer's account for the
close OF the preceding year, and the in
terest Tor the current year; but he can
not calculate Mt the beginning of wear
the interest on bonds which the Lepis-
lature may afterward issue during that
year; whereas the Treasurer, at the end
of the year, knows of all these bonds and
makes out his account accordingly. Now.
whom did Major Rion charge with hay
ing cooked these books, was it MIR.
Walker, MIR. Tappan or MIR. Gary? Who
ever heard word against the character
OF these gentlemen? Hereupon, Col. Rion
said that Randall in, New York, was the
one alluded to. Here Mr.. Melton said.
when did Randall have the books; did
not these very accounts run back to '68
and beyond that? The books are in the
handwriting of these three gentlemen.
the Items, dates, DC, all given; nothing
to excite suspicion of any cooking in
them; the entries were made long before
there could have existed any occasion for
Justification; but by these vesy books,
which they say are cooked, they agree
with US as to the first three fiscal years;
they say the interest is correct for these
}
with the unbalanced accounts of the un-
constructed government up to '68: the
interest in 1868, was S168,OOO; 1869 ia
correct-so is 1870; still we find no traces
of cooking; the defendant claims that
the interest due in 1870, is S519,.
447.5O, but MIR. Dunn says that this ia
too much, because he claims we have
charged interest on bonds for the nav.
ment OF the public debt which were not
then sold; this Is based on Dennis own
assumption, that these bonds were then
unsold and unissued; Dunn has tried to
cook the books; he has made the plain
titf's counsel sny that the accrued inter
est was no greater than the interest paid:
his first correction is $50, 600 interest. on
bonds which he says wero not sold till
September, 1860, while the defendants
charge interest until October, 1868:
plaintiff says this is too much, and for
their only reason refer us to Kimpton's
books; there Is an entry below n previous
entry mnde in September, 1869. Some
of these bonds were sold, although the
date of the sale is blank; they say .Kimp-
toms account makes it appear that these
bonds were sold in September, 1869:
now if Kimpton ever intends to repeat
anything he always does SO enthusiastically;
in this same account October il repeated,
written out in full, and December is. re-
peated in writing three tines. if this
entry was meant to show that the sale
of these South Carolina bonds had
been made in September, lie would
either have written ditto undca the Inst
entry, which was in September, or would
have made some mark to designate that
he meant it; MS it is, it is blank and
shows nothing. Now, this is Dennis
whole reason for saying that the defend
ants interest account is wrong-because
Kimpton reports that he sold the bonds
on blank day, and happens to insert it
under September, 1869. 1t is impossible
to tell from this when they were sold,
and the jury hns no other information
on the subject; if any were sold prior to
April, 1868, the defendants account is
correct; Kimpton hns studiously avoided
giving the dates of the sale of any Of
these bonds; the Financial Board could
nevor get him to give them any informa-
ton rs to the sales of South Carolina
bonds; by On Act of the Legislature,
II