The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-08-01
THE CHARLESTON COUPON CASES
CnARLEsToN, July 19, 1873.
Editor anderson Mtclliqenccr:

Editor anderson MtclHgenccr
When 1 determined to reply to your
first article upon this subject, 1 had
neither the desire nor the intention to
enter into prolonged controversy with
you. Such controversies are of little
practical benefit, the good they accom-
plish is seldom sufficient compensation
for the bad temper they so frequently
excite.
must, however, ask your indulgence
again, in order to enlarge somewhat up
on several ofthe points submitted in my
formercommunication. I Ifrepeat myself,
I do so with the desire to impress and
bring out more clearly those ideas, which,
as l infer from your reply, l have pre-
yiously failed to make sufficiently ex-
plicit.
Before proceeding, however, permit
me to say that do not think your for
nal introduction of me in your reply,
within the limits of, or necessary to
legitimate comment on what I had writ
ten 1t leads to the inference that
Messrs. Lord and Inglesby, were in some
way concerned in my action in this mat
ter. 1t is but justice to these gentlemen
that should state that they were in en-
tire ignorance of my having written to
you, until the paper containing my COM
munitation was placed in their hands by
me. Nor are my views to be regarded as
in any way "semi-official." If there be
any aSsurdlty or lack of logical certainty
in then, alone am to be charged there
with. What was written concerning the
proceedings in question, is matter of
public record and discussion in open
court, knowledge of which does not de-
pend ur'n thepeculiarity of my position.
That yo, should have called attention to
that position was, as have said, not ne
cessary to this discussion; but 1 do not
regret your having done so, inasmuch as
you thusgive me the opportunity to state
that your conclusion in the premises is
erroneous, and enable me to fix the whole
responsibility of my letter upon myself,
where Improperly and only belongs.
The fist point to which 1 would again
call your attention, is that the cases un-
der discussion were not crushed to trial
before Judge Mackey."
I again answer your allegation that
they weR, by stating that it was to
satisfy the State that these cases were
not tried before Judge Wallace. The
AttorneyGeneral came to Charleston
during tEat term, and earnestly urged as
a matter of convenience to him and the
other counsel with him, that the filing of
the return should not be then insisted
on. 1t vas after the most earnest resis-
tance on the part of the counsel for the
bondholders, that the delay asked for
was granted; and then only upon the
promise Of the Acknowledgement that the
Rclators should not lose that term Of the
court. The bondholders and their coun-
sci, it would therefore appear, not only
would have been willing, but were in
fact very desirous that their cases should
be argued before judge whose views
were not known, and at time anterior
to the organization of the special court.
The return was not filed during that
term. and the cases were again..continucd
for the reason already stated.
1t surrey must be clear to you now
that judge Mackey heard the argument
simply il the course of the business of
his term Judging from their previous
conduct, it is evident that the rclators
would haze pressed for trial, at every
term of ae court until some judge would
be foundwilling to grant it. They had a
right, perfect and unaffected to do so,
and nom can reasonably question it.
The secoid point and one to which ! ask
special attention, is that the investigation
of the colpons, and consequently of the
bonds coIid have been had before Judge
Mackey IS well as it can be had before
the special court. Juries could have
been cmpnnellcd in the Circuit Court;
commissions could have issued thercfrom
for the examination Of witnesses in any
part of the country, and all other re-
quisitcs could have been provided there
for as thorough sitting of the actings
and doings of the officers who issued the
consolidation bonds and of the nature of
the securities, given in exchange for
them. as tan be had under the omnipo-
tent, omnscient, and omniprescnt egis
of the court of claims. Tile investigation
of tue coM,0as is the investigation of the
bands to which they respectfully belong;
and the State could thus have been
saved thecxpense necessary TO the main
tenancc O special court The bond
holders cid not avoid such an inquiry
into their bonds. There WAS nothing in
the remcCy which they adopted which
prccludcd it. Ii was no part Of the
scheme, tt "harass the State" ruin her
finances, and cast contempt up
pn her extraordinary court, which
with Sc much magnanimity you
Ascrlbc 10 them, that they
d Aould d,dge the investigation of their
,lAlims. ly their conduct they showed
.hA Alt they stood then, as doubtless they
sta Ind nov, ready to go to trial upon
vAry allegation of fraud in these claims,
and to asst in furnishing statement Of