The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-07-18
THE CHARhEsfoa c0ur0N CASES
CHARLESTON, july 9th. 1878.

I ~ aAHAhfHcAO1S, July Otuy 1910.
MR.. EDITOR: In your issue of the 4tt
inst. appears an article entitled ''The
State Bonds" il which you comment
upcn case recently argued before Judge
Mackey, in this city, involving the re-.
ceivability of Coupous Of the State Con.
eelidaticn Bonds In payment of taxes
The article Is severe criticism, and as
1t was doubtless written in ignorance Of
material facts in the history of the case,
and knowing your invariable willingness
to admit into your columns statements
upon both sides Of any question of public
interest, venture to reply to it.
The proceedings in question were com.
menced last January, by petitions filed
by aeveral bondholdets who had rendered
coupons Of the Consolidation Bonds, to-
gether with Hampton taS receipts and
cash, ID payment Of the taxes due for tho
year 16T6--the year in which the cou-
pnns matured. The prayer of these ps-
titions was that rules issue against the
County Treasurer of this County. COM
manding him to show cause why pcremp.
tory mandamus should not issue TO COM
pei him 70 receive the coupons so ten.
dered. The rules upoa them were signetl
by Judge Reed in January. tli,'7,
Your editorial charges that these bond
nuldera not only brought tfhoir caaes in
the Circu,f Court, when special Court
for the trial of the validity of the bonds
had been instisuted, hut that they also
ehose to bring them before Judge whose
pronounced viewsp would necessitate o
decis.on In tlicir favor. $50 81. !.
These are very grave errors. The fret
or them is easily disposed of. As k.ss
been stated above, these proceedings
were commenced In JdEudyy; The "Couft
OF Ulnims' was eaabliehed three months
gfsef. 1t 10 therefore impossible that
they could Aavo been iRsfitlGted for the
purpose OF avoiding q trial of the Issues
involved before the "Court of Claims.n
The second charge is that the cases
were carried before Judge Mackey with
-ssaeeiai reference IN hia "rarnnnnnrasi
ylalYa." It was upon the motion of the
C0uJ,sy InNasurer that the return "a ihe
fuls was NIT required to be filed when
Judge Reed was pre8idinE; and when
tho matter was SS..oo11gnS before Judgo
Wallace, who held the next Ssrm of our
CouEt, postp1nement was again ordered,
on tho ground that the Le1islasura was
ns that time discussing tho qcesdon OF
tho Stats debt! That discussion teTmi.
mated in The creation of the Count oi
Claims, and il appearing that this new,
/, a..d e1aEezAEzail.ass, Gie...s eanli ssaA give
the precise remedy sought in these bro bro
ilceedlngss the only coufde left for the Tola-
fora 20 pursue We to press for return
and hearing at the next term cffhe Cir
cult Court, and iE 60 itSupeuetS. That
That term Yves held by Judge Msekey,
Iha argument vas mad Da.ore him mere
ly IN this course Of the business Of the
Cciigk, ana not because Of his ''pro-
Iinpnuced views on this eEbioct.
! Whethex such views were or were not
l.fayofaDls 20 the bnndholders. it did not
ceheo9e them, or those who represented
them, To enquire. Their cases were
argued before him I'd tt.sy would laye
been befcye any j tidge who may have
been then psSAid ding.
As ta' not che custom OF the Ber here %
eltausEa irs9 the ylsFie Of tho Judge wbu
IS 70 lpseoiae during The trial OF their
cases, her aisSLl ttsihl be Of tie validi.
! " % tssate Bonds and tbs yeceiv ability
oS ~ YOU 'QEiE TUT ysIsSss or OF Tn9 most
tfIsign ElcAnt igssie. Tt iias not vet issYIi.
cd the Practice tliat lint FED the Court
ssnS tlIsn pro- 90 20 triaI.
~ gfs also lt9I,este by 7 sio1 that the
! ~ - {.
,ete bY these b0ndhoid erS rilI eYerthats
islstl;fse csa coming before the Snpfeaie
ctisl .Ps she kstrsc, tNeo sof whose Judges