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

article published elsewhere, attempts q
severe criticism upon our remarks two
weeks ago 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 10 Introduce him TO our readers
rs a law student in the Office of Messrs.
Lord & Iaglesbly, of Charleston, Who
represent a very large AMOUNT of State
bonds, and were, we believe, attorneys in
some of the oases of which our correspon-
dent wtises. His views, therefore, may
Z be understood in semi-oficial manner
10 represent the views of the attorneys of
the bondholders, who are seeking 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 10 notice the positions as
samed by him in his article. We were
saistaaen as to the time of the commence
alent of the actions referred to, but the
circumstances narrated by our correspon-
dent sustain the remainder of our COM
ments upon these cases. 1t appears that
Judge Wallace held Court in Charleston,
and the cases ought to have been tried
by him, but we're postponed ca the
ground that the matter was before the
Legislature, and when Judge Mackey
went to Charleston the cases were tried,
although the matter was, at that very
time, before. the Bond Court. Now, it
seems to us very inconsistent to 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 o. the State, while the
matter was pending in special Court
appointed to try the whole bond question.
Their action amounted to nothing more
nor less than proposition to accept their
money, if the State would pay it, with.
out any investigation, and as this was
not done, they preferred to try their cases
before Judge whose opinion they knew
to leaving it to an impartial Court
They evidently rest their case on the Law,
and not on the equity Of their cause, aud
in seeking this remedy they do not in
volye' their claim, but only small por-
ton oft, so that if they should fail the
validity of their bonds cannot be effected,
and they will be in position to harrass
the State with repeated suits upon their
coupons.
It is true that the new bond court
could not. issue the mandamus to the
Treasurer to receive these coupons for
taxes, but /. could decide the bonds good,
and then the coupons would be paid from
the counter ofthe State Treasurer, which
would substantially have afforded the
bondholders the relief asked if their
claims be valid. Tho remark of our
correspondent that the Charleston Bar
does not first feel the court before pro-
ceedins to trial is entirely gratuitous, as
no such charge was made; and it is not
calculated to Increase the strength of his
position to deny what has never been
asserted nor is there any occasion for
the remarks about the views Of so many
of the Judges becoming public property.
The article of. the 1NTELLIGENCER did
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 not now intend to do 60. It is
the bondholders who are unwilling to
abide the decision of fair and uncom-
mitted court that we eensure, and we
still think their course deserves condem-
nation from the citizens Of the State.
) Of course, we know that an appeal
from the Bond Court goes to the Su-
preme Court, but it goes to that Court
upon certain findings of fact which the
Supreme Court will not disturb, and
therefore the decree is likely to be very
different from what it would be going up
from the Circuit Court. It is very e1-
pensive to the State to Gtigate these
cases, and the bondholders know that
upon suits on their coupons the State
cannot afford to spend the money neces-
sary to decide their real merits, for it
amounts to q separate suit in every case
each year, while in the Bond Court the
whole question will be fully Investigated
and fairly decided. This advantage is
no doubt the reason the bondholders
prefer the Circuit Court; and our cor
respondents views that there is practi-
cally no difference between the two
Courts are without force.
Our correspondent burns with uirtuous
indignation at our suggestion that il the
fraudulent bonds should be foisted upon
the State by she forms of las0, the State
could defeat one-half of the claim by
legal enactment changing the time for
the payment of taxes; and asks, "What
would be thought of an individual who
would thus endeayor to avoid his con-
tract?" And again, Gwen fit would
SO avail, would the moral obliquity be
any the lessf' We are really amused
at our correspondents ides of morality.
Our position is to stand by the contract
so far as the valid and honest bonds are
concerned, and reject every cent of the
dishonest and fraudulent ones. Is this