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

ker had no means Of knowing that Kimp-
ton had not sold them as soon as they
were received by him; and if that had
been the case, and he had not mado al
lowance for this interest by charging
only from go, there would have been a
deficiency. The interest for 1871 is
$500, 900, and Dunn wants to add in a
nice little slice of $4,000; but then he
wants to out off S4S, 900 for the next year.
est for bonds for the payment of the pub
lilo debt; he did not omit it on S3OO,OOO,
but on $500, 900 of bonds which amounts,
ITO S48, GOO; this was clear onlis-
sion by Parker; now there were two
issues of these bonds for the payment of
interest on the public debt-the first of
Sl,0OO,O OUU showed on their fuse their
purpose, which was bold admission of
the States inability to pay the interest
on Its debt, and it was decided to recall
these and put out another million with
this admission left off; this was done,
but Kimpton only returned $500, 600 of
the first issue; thus 1900, 900 were out;
why interest was charged on only $780,
1000, counsel don't know; but that was
certainly not against Parker in this case;
but soon after this the bubble burst, the
vail of all these snles was rent in the
midst, and the enormous public
debt of SIS, ,0000, 900 was thus disclosed.
Dunn says that the Land Commission
s bonds were not sold until October 81,
1871; you must have smiled, gentlemen,
when you heard this; you know that tho
Land Commission commenced to buy
up lands and to scatter their money
everywhere rs soon as the Commission
was created; bonds were issued for the
purpose of raising money to buy lands
with; Dunn says they were not sold until
1871, because he finds bonds in the
.hands of creditors in 1879; Kimpton ex.
plainod why this was; he said that in
pledging bonds, when they were taken
up, the same bonds pledged were not
always returned, but others of the same
sState issue were put in their stead; the
-Gact that Kimpton had these bonds in
Al872'is no evidence that they had not
,been previously sold; they were either
sold or had been hypothecated and be-
come forfeited, and came back to Kimp-
ton in lieu of other bonds which lie
had pledged; Kimpton said that some
: bonds were pledged, redeemed and
pledged again; Parker did charge inte-
rest on the Land Commission bonds and
1t was proper charge; he could not
have provided for the interest on these
: bonds otherwise than by charging inte-
issuing from the treasury; because Kimp-
ton did not furnish him with the dates
of the sales, it does not alter the case
that they were pledged rs collaterals in
1874; the report does not say they were
pledged; Parker's report of the indebt-
edness of the State, made in October,
1871, was the first the State received since
reconstruction; Walker verified this re-
port, and Jones only differs from it
5000; he called attention to the care
with which the report had been made
out; 1t Was necessary, in October, 1872,
to reporT all bonds then outstanding;
there were SO, $4,000 of conversion
bonds; Parker charges interest on them
only back to July, 1871; he did not
know why Parker only charged six
months interest on them, but supposed it
was because of information he had on
the subject; Dunn says that none were
sold prior to October 81, 1871; in Par
ker's report, in 1871, there were then
outstanding s3,776,O0O of conversion
bonds under hypothecation; Klmpton's
report for tho same year says there were
over 100000 of South Carolina bonds
then on hand; did that mean that they
were hypothecnted or not? Granting that
So. ZIG, 900 were not then sold, where were
the rest2 SCOTS testimony shows that
these conversion bonds were used for all
sorts of purposes; although these bonds
were not issued for the purpose of rails
ing money, the Legislature turns right
around and gives Kimpton authority to
use any South Carolina bonds for this
purpose; some did not trust to Kimpton's
sales of the conversion bonds, and to be
safe, had these conversion bonds recon
verted at the treasury in Columbia; nearly
$4,000,000 Of conversion bonds, which
had been hypothecated for $1,000, 900
loan, were forfeited and sold, and the
State got 100000 for $4,000, 900 of
bonds; in 1872, Of the So, 100000 of con-
version bonds which had gone into
Kimpton's hnnds, there remained only
$1,000, 900; now, were the coupons cut off
prior to their hypothecation? counsel said
that there was no rule on this subject,
and the jury, without any evidence,
could not say that they were; he said
there was good reason why the coupons
not be detached, md q reason why thew