The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-07-18
THE CHARLESTON COUPON CASES.
CHARLESTON, July sth, 1878.

49,, -. CHARLESION, July otu, 1ofo'
MIR. EDITOR: In your issue of the 4th
inst. appears an article entitled "The
State Bonds" in which you comment
upon case recently argued before Judge
Mackey, in this city, involving the re-
ceivability of Coupons of the State Con-
solidation Bonds in payment of taxes.
The article is severe criticism, and as
It 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 several bondholders who had rendered
coupons of the Consolidation Bonds, to-
gether with Hampton tax receipts and
cash, in payment Of the taxes due for the
year 1S76--the year in which the cou-
pons matured. The prayer of these pc
titions was that rules issue against the
County Treasurer of this County, COM
manding him to show cause why peremp-
tory mandamus should not issue to COM
pei him to receive the coupons so ten
.dered. The rules upon them we're signed
by Judge Reed in January.
Your editorial charges that these bond
holders not only brought their cases in
the Circuit Court, when a special Court
for the trial of the validity of the bonds
had been instituted, but that they also
chose to bring them before Judge whose
pronounced views" would necessitate
decision in their favor.
These are very grave errors. The tlEst
of them is easily disposed of. As has
been stated above, these proceedings
were commenced in January; the "Court
of Claims" was established three months
after. II is therefore impossible that
they could have been instituted for the
purpose of avoiding trial of the issues
involved before the "Court of Claims"
The second charge is that the cases
were carried before Judge Mackey with
special reference to his pronounced
views" It was upon the motion of the
County Treasurer that the return to the
rule was not required to be filed when
Judge Reed was presiding; and when
the matter was brought before Judge
Wallace, who held the next term of our
Court, postponement was again ordered,
on the ground that the Legislature WAS
at that time discussing the question Of
tho State debt. That discussion termi-
mated in the creation of the Court Of
Claims, and it appearing that this new
and extraordinary Court could not give
the precise remedy sought in these pro-
ceedings, the only course left for the rela-
tors to pursue was to press for return
and hearing at the next term of the Cir
cult Court, and it 30 happened, that
that term was held by Judge Mackey.
The argument was had before him mere
IL in the course of the business of the
Court, and not because of his pro-
nouuced views" on this subject.
Whether such views were or were not
favorable to the bondholders, it did not
behoove them, or those who represented
them, to enquire. Their cases were
argued before him as they would have
been before any Judge who may have
been then presiding.
It is not the custom of the Bar here to
enquire into the views of the Judge who
ia to preside during the trial of their
cases, whether such trial be of the validi-
ty of State Bonds and the receivability
Of the coupons for taxes, or of the most
insignificant issue. 1t has not yet learn
ed the practice that frat feels the Court
and then proceeds to trial.
It is also suggested by you that the
unfortunate and unpatriotic course pur-
sued by these bondholders will eyentuate
in these cases coming before the Supreme
Court of the State, two of whose Judges