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

AAG ChAhAES1UN COUPON CASES.
The reply to our article of two weeks
ago upon this question, is presented TO
our readears this week, although 1t con-
tains no new information, and is virtually
reiteration of the statements of our cor
respondent which called forth our article
to which he now replies, except the por-
tion of it which 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 40 init
mately connected with the subject matter
of which he wrote, but it certainly did
not promote 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 s. Ingles-
by did not reflect upon these gentlemen
at all. 1t merely 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 vas reasonable that he
formed his peculiar, views of this case
from their stand point. He may net
have consulted with them a. 1T the
phraseology of his article, and they may
not have known that he wrote Ii, but he
will hardly say that he did not consult
TEs.;tk tl,ens ahcnt !he fret article in the
INrELLIaENCER, and he will hardly say
chat hc assumed any positions which do
not meet their approval in his reply. II
he did write about case OF the Attor-
neys in whose Office he studied, and il
apracticing without properly understand
ing their views, 1t 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 now
matter in the controversy. Therefore we
z think it wac proper for Us to state chat he
was connected with tie Attorneys of the
bondholders, an0 that no scm;-o6ifciiaiiiy
represented their viewa.
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 up in the
due conme of the court. This is no
doubt the fact, and also that the relators
had the right under the law to 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 waa before
the Legislature, and yet they were tried
before Judge Mackey, when the question
! was before special court, raised 40 4
compromise and agreed TO by all parties.
Thore is no force in the allegation that
the bond court cannot grant q man
,damps to compel the receipt of these coii-
pons for taxes, because whenever the
bond court decidesa bend to be valid,
Z It's decision would make the couponsdue
on that bond always receivable 5or taxes,
and therefore the relators could hayo
& stayed their cause on the coupons and
secured a decision upon their bonds
which would have eettled rot only tLo
validity the ccupons sued on. but of all
she coupons upon alich bonds as wera
found to- be valid The confse pussued
by these bondholders might be a very
good one for lawyers, as il would neces-
sitate number of suits or require the
State to pay all the coupons. The suit
upon coupons IL such small matter thatit
would cost the State too much to defend
each and every case as fully and com
pletgsy aa it ought TO be dons for the SER
gtcos Of counsel, and Che expenses Of the
courts would in many inS.ances, coat
moro thEn the amount involved in the
coupon cases, and ifthe stste ahonld gain
Tho suits upon sorie and lose upon others,
as no doubt would be- the csse, tho cost
would be snormeis, and stillthe validity
of none of the bonds would be aetsled and
new suits would be rising al fast is cou-
pons mature md taxes are collected.
Rehaye claimed, and aee no reason to
Sehenge tlas opinion, thnt the whole bond
question ought te be settled as ecoaonai. !
cRily, ss iltsiIys as epcsdslYl and "a per- |
tiasnenss IS possible. and any clsiIen Of
Iii stat0 who irlterfezea f0E his selfish
ppEle cs 70 prex--s such & result, Is not
ssatriotic. Now The inye Eieaflou by the |
bond e9urs Bonld, SIC believe, sscure q
igss sean5mica and pesmrnenel
of es debt question &
ma n5ti ge ESQ tss coaviaced that thial
1 iSfs ~ u Hold the 7pinion tlsEE
tns sttiel teiqf,esasy a1i
81 tal 81 el a I