The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-01-31
THE ANDERSON RESOLUTIONS.

r..sf - 80 e
In the canvass of 1875 all of our po-
litical leaders. spoke of the fraudulent
debt of South Carolina, and promised if
the Democratic party was returned to
power that the whole debt of the State
should besscrutinized, and that such por-
tion of it as was shown to be fraudulent
Illegal should not be paid by the over
bnrdened people Of our long oppressed
State. The:people of Anderson County
we're simple and honest enough to be-
lieYe that those leaders were telling them
the truth upon this subject, and still be-
lieve it to be; true; and hence the County
Executive Committee, in the resolutions
complained of by the Nsws and Courier,
simply gave expression to its views as to
scope Of inquiry which they thought best
calculated to procure a satisfactory and
just result. Our people are not repudia-
tionists in any degree, and desire to see
every dollar justly due the creditors of
the State paid but they are not in favor
of an indiscriminate payment Of every
thing that pretends to be 9 debt of the
State. The portion of the debt to which
the Anderson resolutions object are, first,
the illegal debt; second, the fraudulent
debt, and third, the squandered debt.
About the Illegal debt there can be no
controversy. No one can reasonably
favor its payment, as is embraces the
claims against the State which uere not
issued In accordance with Law, and for
which the State received nc considers
tion. The fraudulent debt is that por-
tion Of the pretended debt which was
issued without any necessity on the part
of the public officers and placed upon
the market without receiving an ade-
quate consideration. OF course, to in
validate this partof the debt, it is sneces-
sary to prove, either positively or circum-
5 stantially, that the purchasers we're
acquainted with the nature of the trans
action, or by reasonable inquiry could
have made Themselves 80 acquainted.
AS an example of this class Of pretended
Indebtedness, We. would instance the hy-
pothecation of a large amount of bonds
In New York by Kmpson, for . small
loan, and their subsequent forfeiture ct q
mere triae. All the parties to this knew
that ii, was q awindle, and they obtained
no equities under it. Nov, we favor the
refusal of payment pc the vhole Of these
securities upon Che we'll blished ,prin..
ciple Of law, that where fraud enters into
q transaction even a court.of equity will
{ not trouble 70 separate the just from the
fraudulent portion Of the transaction.
Neither is State Under any: obligation
to do so. The portion of the debt which
was squandered is very clearly represen-
5 ted By such claims as the Land Commis-
sion Bonds. The people of the United
States knew full well thatsWe were under
the government of q party Of thieves,
and when they loaned them money it
was done for The purpose Of fastening .
usurpation upon. us the most unprinci-
pied that ever cursed any people, and5in
certain degree they we're parties to the
fraud. We would be perfectly willing to
give them all that the State received for
the debts which they hold; as, for In
stance, the lands the State obtained for
the Land Commission Bonds. Every
one who loaned South Carolina money
knew they were running . risk, and the
price at which the bonds sold Indicated
clearlys suspicion that all MAS not right
and proper; hence, if the State gives all
she got for the money the equities Of the
transaction would not have any violence
done them. +
Now, what Che Neps and Courier says
about Democrats voting for the Console
dation Act being a pledge Of the party,
has no force whatever in it, for they were
simply acting as individuals, who were
in q hopeless minority. There was no
party caucus, but It was acted onas the
best that could be done nnder the cir
cumstances.. The great mistake which
our contemporary makes is that it sup
poses we wish to overthrow the Consoli-
dasion Act. Such is not the,case. We
only wish 70 eliminate The frauds from it,
and every lawyer knows that fraud will
be eliminated from any transaction by
the courts of the land, however late it
may be discovered. No promises Of the
Legislature, of the Democratic party nor
of individuals could validate fraud, for
there wasno return Of consideration for
such validation. Moreover, no utterance
Of any of these parties promised to do
] more than pay she debt. That which is
q fraud is no part Of the debt, and no
promise has ever been made to pay that
which wssnot due. ,,.;. :.
In conclusion, Ne must express our
surprise at the threatening tone of the
latter portion of the Nesos Gnd Curriers'
article. Does it mean to say that it, or
the Democrats it represents, intend to
split the Democratic party, if the Legis-
latnre sees fit to separate the good from
the fraudulent debt of the State? This
portion of the lecture to the Anderson
Democracy reminds us very much. Of
what our contemporary said about the
move Of the Anderson Democracy to se-
cure a straightcout nomination two years
ago. Such vague hints are unbecoming
in any Democratic journal. This attack