The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-07-18
TRE CHARLEsrON COUPON CASES.

THE CHARLESTON COUPON CASES.
Our Charleston correspondent 10 an
article published elsewhere, attempts .
severe criticism upon our remarks two
weeks ego about the Charleston coupon
cases, and as we do not intend TO enter a.
controversy upon this important question
under disadvantages, il may be we'll
enough to Introduce him 10 our readers
as law student in the Office of Messrs.
Lord & Iuglesbly, of Charleston, who
represent very large AnAouns of State
bonds, and were, we believe, attorneys in
some OF the CaEes of which our correspon-
dent writes. His views, therefore, may
be understood in semi-oficiai manner
TO represent the vieYs of the attorneys Of
The bondholders, who are seekiug TO
avoid the decision of the Bond Court
upon their claims. With this explana-
ton of the personal relation Of the writer
to the subject matter OF the controversy,
we proceed tu notice the positions as-
snHed by him in his article. We were
mistaken as to the time of the commence
ssient Of the actions referred to, but the
circumstances narrated by our eorfespon-
dent sustain the remaindee of our COM
mcnts upon these cases. It appears that
Judge Wallace held Court in Charleston.
and tho cases ought TO have been tried
10y min, but were postponed oi the
ground that the matter was before the
Legislature, and when Judge Mackey
went to Charleston the cases were tried.
although tho matter was, at that very
time, before the Bond Court. Now, it
seems to us very inconsistent tn continue
these cases when Judge. Wallace, whose
views upon them were unknown, was
holding Court, because the matter was
pending before the Legislature, and yet
rush them to trial before Judge Mackey,
whose views have been made public
through the press Of the State, while the
matter was pending in special Court
appointed TO try tho whole hnnd question.
Their actisn amounted TO nothing more
;:- .z :.;ian proposition to accept their
s.ioney, If the State would pay it, with
oct any investigation, and as this was
not done, they preferred to try their cases
before Judge wi1oso opinion they knew
TO leaving 1t to an impartial Court.
They evidently rest their case on the law,
and not on the equity of their cause, and
in seeking this remedy they DO not in
volyo their claim, but only small s.or-
tion oft go that If they should fail tho
validity of their bonds cannot be effscted,
and they will be in position TO harruss
the State with repeated suits upon their
coupons.
1t Is true that the new bond court
could not issue the mandamus to the
Treasurer to receive these coupons for
taxes, but 1t could decide the bonds good.
and then the coupons would be paid from
che counter ofthe State Treasurer, which
would substantially have afforded the
bondholders the relief asked II their
claims be valid. The remark Of our
correspondent that the Charleu' IN Bar
docs not first feel the court before pro-
ceeding to trial is entirely gratu,tous, as
no such charge was made; and it Is not
calculated 20 Increase the strength Of hia
position to deny what has never been
asserted; nor 10 there any occasion for
the remarks about the views of 30 many
of the Judges becoming public property.
The article Of the rNrRLL1oENCER die
not reflect upon any Judge. It-only
stated what is known to be their opinion
upon certain questions of law. We
neither criticized nor censured them,
and do ncs now intend to do 80. It 10
The bondholdera who Gre unwilling te
abide the decision of fair and uncom-
mitted court that we oensure, and we
still think their course deserves condem.
nation from the citizons of the State.
Of course, we know that an appeal
from the Bond Court goes to the Su-
prehie Court, but it goes to that Court
upon certain findiDga of fact which the
supreme Court will not dlaturb, and
4 therefore the decree is likely to be very
different from what is would BIO going up
from the Circuit Court. It is very OK.
psnaive to the State to litiyata these
cases, and the hondholders know that
upon seits on their coupons the State
cannct afford TO spend the money necss,
saey % decide their reel .sseaerlks,s for is
amounts to separate suit In sveyy case
esoii ycaI, wills IN tho Bond Court Il. !,
whole question viii be fully investigated
and fairly dapided. This advantage is
no donbt che reason Che boadholdsrs
prefer the Circuit Court; and our cor.
respondens's views that there Is practi.
sally no difference between tho two
Courts are without forcs. sif1s
Our correspondent burls With virtuoi,s
indignation as our suggestion that is tae.
fraudulent bonds saould bs fbiSted upon
the State by the fcyals Of lasg. tho State.
could defeat one.haif OF the claim By.
legal enactment changing tho time for.
the payment Of taxes; and asIs, What.
'Wouia pc thoughts or On inuiFluuaI VINO
would thus enaeavor to avoid his con-
tract ~ And again, Even ifit would
90 avail, would the moral ohlIauity bs
{ any the less ?,' we ara really amused
st our c5rfeanond dent,e idea os froralitv