The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1879-05-01
OFFICIAL RECORDS.

election cases, and was lecided by Judge
Bond last week The United States
District Attorney issued subpoena for
Col. Sims, directing him to bring into
Court the original poll lists from the
city Of Charleston, which he did not
obey A rule was Issued against him to
show cause Why he should not be attach
ed for contempt OF Court 70. not obcying
tho subpoena, and the following proceed.
ings were had thereon:
Mnjor Thco G.. Barker on behalf Of
the attorney general Of the State, sub
mittcd the following return to the rule
issued against the Hon. X. NJ Sims,
Secretary of State:
10 tie HIM. Me Circuit Caut NJ tie Uni
tcd .S,ntes for tie E1nrh CiwuH:
II. NJ. Sims, secretary of State for the
State of South Carolina, upon whom has
been this day served rule to show
cause before this Honorable Court, on
Thursday, the 18th instant, ut 10 o'clock
n. m, why he should not be attached for
contempt Of Court in failing to respond
to Il smp"mn dnccs hcum served upon
| him in certain cases rcctcI therein, re-
specially shows for cause: {: That ever
since the service of the said subpoena he
| has been, and that he still il, too i'll to
| leave Columbia to attend this Honorable
| Court IA witness. And this rcspon-
dent herewith submits the certificate of
his attending physician, DR. w. B. lay
| lor.
| That the papers which he is required
by said SnbprUn dH.rs hrum to produce
are papers belonging to his office, which
he is, by statute, required to keep in Co.
lumbia that he has been heretofore ad-
viscd and s now advised, by the attor-
ney general Of the State, who is by stat
ute his adviser on questions Of law relat.
ing to his official business, that the books,
records aud papers belonging to the of.
law to be kept in that Office in the State.
House iii Columbia that they are there
subject to inspection, but that the secrc-
tary Of State has no authority to remove
them on subpoena dnces fccum.
That the foregoing are the reaso,is why
this respondent has failed to attend this
Honorable Court in person as II witness,
and To bring the papers mentioned in the
said aubpTna duccs fecum.
And this respondent, further shows
that he is now, and has Mt II times been,
willing to submit the said papers to in
speCtion, and to furnish certified copies
thereof in accordance with the uniform
practice of his office since its inception.
And this respondent disclaining all
contempt or intention of contempt to-
wards this Honorable Court, prays that
the said rule be dismissed
Sworn to and signed by
r. NJ. SIMS,
Secretary Of State.
District Attorney Northrup stated that
he, of course, took no issue with the re-
turn 30 far rs it related to the indisposi-
tiOn of the secretary of State, but he did
take issue with it upon the question of
the right of the secretary OF State to
withhold certain papers. books and re-
cords from the United States against the
process of the United States Court. AS
this point involved the question of n
conflict of jurisdiction between the State
and United States Governments, he ask
cd the Court to allow him time 10 pre-
pnre himself ior the argument.
Judge Bryan said the opportunity ask
ed by the council for time is very rea-
sonable request. and enc that belongs to
the gravity of the occasion. 1t would
not be proper for him, without investi-
cation, to speak to the subject. The
Canrt itself woaid iv, like to undertake
to decide a question OF such importance
without full ndvisement. The return
will be received rs information, and will
be acted upon ut such time rs the coun-
sci may settle upon
The district attorney said that until
this question was settled he could not go
on with :!;e election cases. He, there.
FORE proposed to argue the quc ton on
Friday, and pOstponea the Barn ell con-
spiracy case, which had been set for that
duy:
Maj. Barker said that as the matter
was to be postponed he would prefer to
have II postponement until Monday, i'm
order that the attorney general, for whom
he was acting, might be present. He
felt authorized TO say further that there
was no pronencss on the part of the sec.
retary OF State or attorney general to
provoke conflict of Jurisdiction between
the State and United States, or to raise
any unnecessary questions. He was sat-
isfied tliat the secretary of State ,.as in.
fluenced by the sincere belief that his
duty requires him not 10 remove the pn-
pers, books and records of the State from
the place designated by statute for them
20 be kept.
The district attorney said that Monday
would suit him, and the Cour, accord
ingly fixed the argument upon the return
to the rule for 10 o'clock n. IN. on that
day.
The United States Circuit Court vas
convened at 10 o'clock Monday morning.
Judges Bond and Byran presiding. The
district attorney announced that the hour
had arrived set for hearing the argument
in the matter of the rule against the sec.
retary of State. Major Theo. G. Barker
appeared for the secretary of State, and
made very able argument In support
of the sufficiency of the return TO the
rule. He took the ground that the sec.
retary of State was an executive officer of
tho Stata Government. end .hs.. h.o VA,
expressly forbidden by statute to remove
any of the records from his Office. The
statute also provided tina, certified copias
of records should be furnished bv him.
which should serve rs the originals. He
was ready to furnish these certified con.
les, and took the position that it was not
in the power of the judicial department.
to compel an act by an executive officer
which was in violation of State law.
In conclusion Major Barker said:
1T Is obvious that the district attor.
ney has, in this case, gone beyond the
limits recognized by Statute law of the
State and of the United States. SO wall
ns by judicial decisions of the u. s.
Supreme Court and by the most approved
text writers, as to the proper and necessary
proof of public documents.
i" Certified copies being made by