The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-08-01
THE CHARLESTON COUPON CASES
CHARLESTON, Fully 19, 1873.

Editor Anderson h1telAgencer
when determined to reply to your
first article upon this subject, I 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
former:.communication. IIfrepeat myself,
l do so with the desire to impress and
bring out more clearly those ideas, which,
las infer from your reply, 1 have pre-
lgiously failed to make sufficiently ex-
llicit.
Before proceeding, however, permit
ne to say that l do not think your for
nhl introduction of me in your reply,
wfhin the limits of, or necessary to
legitimate comment on what L had writ
teA 1t leads to the inference that
M@srs. Lord and Inglesby, were in some
way concerned il my action in this mat
ter. 1t is but justice to these gentlemen
that should state that they were in ca i.
tire ignorance of my having written to
you, Fntil the paper containing my COM
muntation was placed in their hands by
me. Nor are my views to be regarded as
in an5 way "semi-odicial." If there be
any aRsurdity or lack of logical certainty
in thdri, alone am to be charged there
with. What was written concerning the
proceedings in question, is matter of
puolicI record and discussion in open
court, knowledge of which does not de.
pend UPON thepeculiarity of my position.
That ydll should have called attention to
that position was, as have said, not ne
cessary = this discussion: hut do No.
regret y9ur having done SO. inasmuch es
you thufgive me the opportunity to state
that yolf conclusion in the premises is
erroneots, 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 yonE attention, is that the cases un-
der dischssion were not Crushed to trial
before Judge Mackey."
agaif sGswer your allegation that
they weP, by stating that it was to
satisfy tie State that these cases were
not tried before Judge Wallace. The
Attorney General came to Charleston
during tsat term, and earnestly urged as
mattenof convenience to hin. and .he
other counsel with him, that the filing OF
the retuh should not be then insisted
on. 1t vas after the most earnest resis-
tance cnlthe part of the counsel for the
bondholsc,s, that the delay asked for
was grated; and then only upon the
promise bf the Attorney General that the
Relatorstkould not lose that term of the
court. The bondhoiders and their coun-
sci, it wGnld 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 notIknown, and ut a time anterior
to the organization of the special court.
The return WIS not fled during that
term, anq the cases were again..continued
for the rlason already stated.
1t surely must be clear to you nov
that judge Mackey heard the argument
simply ii the course of the business oi
his term Judging from their previous
conduct, it is evident thatth relatora
would haye pressed for a trial, at every
term of dhe court until some Judge would
be fornd@illing to grant it. They had q
right, peifect and unaffected to do 90,
and nora can reasonably question it.
The secohd point and one to which I asil;;
special attention, lis that the investigation
of the coppons, and consequently of the
bonds could have been had before Judge
Mackey IS we'll as it can be had before
the special court. Juries could have
been emllnnelled in the Circait Court
commissions could have issued therefrom
for the Examination of witnesses in any
part of the country, and all other. re.
quisites cPuld have been provided there
for as thdough Q aifting of the actings
and doinSs of the officers who issued the
consolidation bonds and of the nature Of
the securities, given lin exchange fol
them, as ysn be had underthe omnipo.
tent, omIsscient, and omnipresent egis
of the court of claims. The investigation
of the eoapons is the investigation of the
bonds TO yhich they respectfully belong
and the State could thus have been
saved thdexpense necessary 20 the main.
tenanee df special court. The bond
holders Did not avoid such an inquiry
into thei1bcnds. There was nothing in
the remedy which they adopted which
pffeciiadae; It. zt was 40 part oof of tsi ssi5
scheme, p "harass the State," ruin hel
finances, and cast contempt up
on her extraordinary court, which
with 81 much mugnanimity 20,
ascrihe to them, that they
should dbdge the investigation of thei
claims. BY their conduct they showed
that they ktood thon, as doubtless the]
stand nosT. ready to go to trial nnnl
| every allarzsion of fraud an these claims