The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-08-01
THE CHARLESTON COUPON CASES

THE CHARLESI0N sCO6PUN CASESs
The reply to our article of two weeks
ago upon this question, is presented to
our readears this week, although it con-
tains no new information, and is virtually
a reiteration of the statements ofour cor
respondent which called forth our article
to which he now replies, except the por-'
ton ofit8hich claims that we exceeded
the bounds of legitimate controversy in
mentioning that our correspondent had
studied law, and stays in the Office of
Messrs. Lord & Inglesby, the Attorneys
for The bondholders in the cases about.
which We were arguing. 1t might have
been more favorable for our correspon-
dents views of this question for it not to
have been known that he was so init
mately connected with the subject matter
ofwhich he wrote, but it certainly did
not promote a full understanding of it
to leave the impression upon the public
mind that some disinterested lover Of
Justice was writing in defense of the
slandered ~ Bondholders of Charleston.
Our reference to Messrs. Lord & Ingles-
by did not reflect upon, n,these gentlemen
at all. Itmerely gave the information
that they were attorneys for the bond
holders, and that the writer was init
mately associated with. them, and that
therefore it was reasonable that he
formed his peculiar views of this case
from their, stand point. He may not
have consulted with them about the
phfaseology, of his article, and they may
not have known that'he wrote it, but he
will hardly say that he did not consult
with them about the first article in the
INrELL1eENcER, and ke will hardly say
that he assumed any positions which do
not meet their approval in his reply. If
he did write about case of the Attor-
neys in whose Office he studied, and is
practicing without properly understand
ingtneir views, it would, to say the least,
be remarkable. Moreover, to show that
his first article properly represented their
views, his reply after he admits consult
ing them, has not developed any new
matter in the controversy. Therefore we
think it was proper for US to state that ne
was connected with the Attorneys of the
bondholders, and that he semi-o6icialy
represented their views.
Our correspondent reiterates that the
cases to command the county treasurer OF
Charleston to receive certain coupons
from consolidation bonds in payment Of
taxes, were not rushed to trial before
Judge Mackey, and only come upin the
due course of the court. This is no
doubt the fact, and also that the relators
had the right under the lawto have
them tried is also fact, but this does
not affect the patriotism of the proceed
ing. Our correspondent has admitted
that they were postponed before Judge
Wallace because the question was before
the Legislature, and yet they were tried
before Judge Mackey, when the question
was before special court, raised as a
compromise and agreed to by all parties.
There is no force in the allegation that
the bond court cannot grant a man
damus to compel the receipt ofthese cou'
pons for taxes, because whenever the
bond court decides bond to be valid,
its decision would make the coupons due
ON that bond always receivable for taxes,
and therefore the relators could have
stayed their cause on the coupons and
secured a decision upon their bonds
which would have settled not only the
validity Of the coupons sued on, but of all
the coupons upon such bonds as were
found to be valid. the course pursued
by these bondholders might be very
good one for lawyers, as it would neces,
state number of suits or require the
State to pay all the coupons. The suit
upon coupons is such small matter that il
would cost the State too much to defend
each and every case as fully and com,
pIetely as it ought to be done for the ser
vices of counsel, and the expenses Of the
courts would in many instances, cost
more than the amount involved in the
coupon cases, and the State should gain
the suits upon some and lose upon others.
as no doubt would be the case, the cost
would be enormous, and still the validity
of none of the bonds would be settled and
new suits would be rising as fast as cou.
pons mature, snd taxes are collected
We have claimed, and see no reason to
change the opinion, that the whole bond
question ought to be settled as economi'
cally, as justly, as speedily and as per
manently as possible, and any citizen OF
the State who interferes for his selfish
purposes to prevent such result, is moi
patriotic. Now the investigation by the
bond court would, We believe, secure a
speedy, Just, economical and permanent
settlement of the debt question.
and until We can be convinced that this
I is wrong we will hold the opinion that
shose who seek partial, temporary and
ses spensiYe settlements like suits on cou-
Es::',a-ss triosie as they sheald