Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1878-02-14
Judge Mackey, w. A. Clark. L. NJ, Grist.

dUlC W GuhO CalO VI tuSLUaClVCo| Olu tuCy
need the presence of bond-holders or bond
holders attorneys to watch and guard and
see fair play? How does it affect their testi.
mony whether taken in York or Columbia,
by one Commissioner, or by all the Commits.
sioners? Certainly we would have preferred
that the Commission should all be present.
This was not convenient or even practicable
on every occasion. The witness, F. j. Moses,
was also examined out of the county, but not,
as you suppose, by only one of the Commis-
sion. A majority was present at this exam
ination, as also at the examination of Dr. Da-
vega and Col. Brice.
As to the bringing in of so much of the
witness statements as suited the purposes Of
the Commission, that is mere assertion, and
is not true. The evidence was condensed, as
it ought to have been, for the use of the Leg
isature and it was fairly and impartially
stated. Matters not considered material were
properly omitted in the report; but, as We
have said, the original examinations of the
witnesses were transmitted along with the re-
port and as part Of the report.
One word more before closing this part of
our answer When upon the examination of
certain witnesses, their testimony implicated
certain individuals, the Commission summon
ed the parties so implicated that they might
speak for themselves, and be heard in their
own defence. This we thought their right
and our duty.
You say that "the report is not the report of
the Commission appointed by the Governor,
and argue that if two Judges cannot decide
question one might infer that two
Commissioners out Of three would be incom-
petent to act" This would be good logic, if
the objection to the decision Of the Court was,
that only two had concurred but no one has
raised such an objection. The decision is
disputed, not because it is the decision of a
majority only, but because that majority was
moved by corrupt and improper influences.
Having cleared scores with you on these
matters, we propose briefly to examine your
historical facts about the public meeting held
at the Court House. You say mot a voice
was raised against the county making sub.
scription. If any one there opposed it, he
either failed to vote, or voted, upon the call
Of the question, against his conviction, as the
resolutions were adopted without objection v
There was no resolution in that meeting that
the county should make subscription no
such question was called. On the contrary,
the controlling idea of that meeting was, that
the question of subscription, by the county,
should be submitted to the people. Instead
of voting unanimous for county subscrip-
ton, the vote was unanimous that the Com.
missioners be requested to submit the ques-
tion of subscription to the voters of the coun.
ty This the Commissioners refused to do,
and, in the refusal, you say, as you may we'll
say, they did ,mong" Their conduct was
against common rights and repugnant to the
principles of republic.
You say that it had been stated in the
meeting that the Commissioners had the right
to subscribe This was said by Judge Mack.
ey, and what of it7 Even he did not, in that
meeting, advise the exercise of such power |;
on the contrary, all were agreed that the
question of subscription should be submitted
to the people.
You say the Commissioners were present.
Why did they not rise and inform the meet
ing that they intended to subscribe in behalf
of the county without consulting the people
of the county? They said as much the next
day, under the advice of Judge Mackey.
Hullender furnished the solution. Before
the sun had set upon the proceedings of that
meeting, which you say was at "fever heat"
for subscription, it was discovered that the
people we're not so ,0arm, and that if they got
LiIc suusCril,tiuu nt nIi, ~ must ue nnu turougn
The Commissioners Turn to the examina-
ton of Hullender and learn that at the meet
ing which voted the subscription, Roberts,
its chairman, said, ave will not have an
election-the people are opposed to SUBJ
scribing."
You say that "no provision existed by law,
under which popular vote could be had
If you are a lawyer, you ought to knog that
the 18th Section of the Charter under which
the subscription was made, was copied from
the Charter incorporating the Airline road,
and that under that Charter popular vote
was had in York and other counties through
which the road passed. Your plea is all
after thought, and only shows you are hard
pressed.
You say that the conclusions of the Com.
mission which you call their verdict,O is
without evidence This is mere assertion
To repel it would require an elaborate argu-
ment, which cannot be had in newspa
per article. You have an off.hand way Of
disposing of that assertion, by another equal.
ly bold, and that is, that the story of fraud
rests only on the testimony of Moses, who is
contradicted by Judge Mackey. A short
hand answer to this is, that Judge Mackey
also contradicts Davega. If the question Of
fraud rested only upon the evidence Of Mo-
ses (who confesses himself an accomplice) we
would unhesitatingly say the proof was not
sufficient; but the proofs rest upon the testi-
mony of a number of other witnesses, and
are of such sort, that We must believe there
was corruption in the majority of the Court,
unless badges of fraud, which are conclusive
against individuals, have no significance
when applied to judge
Whether the whole evidence taken togeth.
er supports our conclusions, we willingl leave
to the public to determine.
You say, suppose the judgment were in
duced by fraud it is nevertheless judgment
which there is no power in the land to gain
say" We will add. that is your opinion-it
is not ours. We think jud gment obtained
by fraud ought TO be and can be set aside,
and when 50 vacated it will protect nothing.
But these are matters for the Courts, not tor
uS.
We have made no charges against bond
holders, and intended none. Many of them
are innocent purchasers; but the people who
have never contracted to pay their claims are
also innocent. One or the other must lose
which shall it be? G. JONES.
S. E. WHITE.
NoTE.-We omitted to notice the allusion
of H." to certain anonymous communica.
tious addressed to a person holding these
bonds, proposing to be seen before the writer
had committed himself upon certain SUBJ