The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1880-08-05


imputing fraud to Mrs. Cash, and told
him if be would read the complaint l
was satisfied he would see that there was
no disrespectful illusions to Mrs. Cash,
as bad studiously avoided making any,
and likewise so lad Col. Shannon, my
associate, and with that view had left out
the Objectionable marginal clause in the
complaint for fear it might be miscon-
strued. At his request sent him copies
of the original summons and complaint
and Judge Kershaw's decree. And when
I met him again afterwards in Columbia,
April % or %, he told me that he had
seen nothing in the complaint disrespect-
full to Mrs. Cash; that so far as Ellerbe
was concerned it might be different, and
that he had so written to the General,
and told him that it was none of his
funeral, provided there was nothing out
side either in the argument or examina-
tion of witnesses at the trial of the cause,
which he then seemed to think was the
cause of trouble. From this I inferred
that Gen. Cash WIS offended at some-
thing that occurred at the trial, and
though / mentioned the fact CT these
conversations to Col. Shannon, speaking
of Col. Watts as my friend, for believe
that he has kindly feelings for me, 1 did
not of course say to Col. Shannon what
1 thought the cause of offence was, for
as fact I did not k,aoao, therefore could
not say what it was. Col. Shannon
speaks of this matter in his letter of June
s, 1880; but one thing I did certainly
say to him, that Col. Watts knew from
these conversations that all responsibility
for the marginal clause devolved upon me,
though the matter was accidentally seen
by Gen. Cash; Col. Watts, however, did
not seem to think that had anything to
do with Gen. Cash's cause of offence then
existing. The letter of Gen. Cash to
Col. Shannon of November "a, 1879, in
which he specifies The marginal clause
above mentioned as the ground of his
then existing cause of offence. I'd. Col.
Shannon's reply of November "a, 1879,
in which he truthfully and justly dis
claims all knowledge of this marginal
clause, and of its erasure from the said
complaint. Sd. Gen. Casl's answer to
Col. Shannon's reply dated December l,
1879, in which he expresses himself as
perfectly satisfied with Col. Shannon's
disclaimer, and grateful to knoao that there
is no cause for an interruption in the friend
iy relations that existed between them,"
show conclusively that Col. Watts was
right when, in the conversations | had
with him in Charleston and Columbia,
FIRST in March and then in April last,
that this was not then the cause of Gen.
Cash's complaint. This is further veri.
fed by conversation between Col.
Shannon and myself, held in his Office
the latter part of November, 1879, and
before Gen. Cash's answer to Col. Shan
mons reply of 25th, 1879. 1 had heard
on the cars from friend, on my way
home from Columbia, that Gen. Cash
had been deeply offended at certain ex-
pressions he had seen in some of the
papers in the case, at the same time this
friend assured me he had been in part
instrumental in settling this matter.
The next day / called on Col. Shannon
at his Office, told him what had been said
to me the day previous, and asked him if
he had heard anything of it; he replied
very pleasantly, "Oh, yes, Col. Cash had
written him a letter, and he had re-
plied;" thereupon he read Gen. Cash's
letter to me and parts of his answer,
especially that part indicating me.
Now, l had before then mentioned to
Col. Shannon how the mistake had been
made by which Gen. Cash saw this mar
ginal clause, and again repeated to him
the whole matter, including the CONVEX
sation I bad with Judge Mackey after he
had granted the injunction, as set forth
in the Judges certificate, and then said
I would write to Gen. Cash and acquaint
him with how the mistake was made, and
that no such marginal clause was in the
original summons and complaint. Col.
Shannon at once replied ''there is no use
in that" saying that 81 have fully salts
fed Gen. Cash about the matter, and
while I told him that I knew nothing
about it, yet 1 fully vii .icated you."
The Colonel seemed to be little hurt at
the thought l might suppose he had not
been generous enough while defending
himself to try and relieve me and that I
still found it necessary to write myself.
Seeing this ebullition of feeling, and de-
sirous of assuring him how much I did
appreciate what he had done, did speak
of his action las he says in his letter of
June 5. 18SQ) in complimentary terms,
assuring him at the same time that as he
thought writing to Gen. Cash on my part
unnecessary that would not do so. To
prove conclusively that upon this matter
there were several and frequent conver.
sations between Col. Shannon and myself,
Col. Shannon himself furnishes it.
Again quoting from his letter of June 5,
he says: The cause went up to the Su-
preme Court, and Ihad then no idea of
any offense having been taken until
about the 18th May. "Capt. DePass on
his return from the Supreme Court told
me he had twice seen Col. Watts, who he
said was a friend of his, who told him
that Gen. Cash and Mr.. Ellerbe we're de-
terlnined to hold us to account, and he,
Capt DePass, thought it his duty to in
form me of it, though the cause of offense
was not referred to-" Any one will see
why I did not refer to the cause of
ofense, for 1 did not know what it was,
at best could only infer from these con-
versations with Col. Watts that it was
something that occurred at the trial, but
what it was he did not say, and therefore
I did not know and could not tell Col.
Shannon. But this fact is conclusively
shown, that Col. Shannon did not for a
moment suppose that it was the marginal
clause, nor did for that matter, and GER
tainly could not think so from what Col.
Watts had said. Now let any candid
mind turn to the challenges cent by Gen.
Cash to me and by Mr.. Ellerbe TO Col.
Shannon, and he will then see that as to
myself l am held responsible for this
marginal clause" but with the view
then that 1 had withdrawn it from the
original complaint. but as to Col. Shan
non, ut is for alleged conduct IN the man
agenaent Of the cause at the trial that con-
siituted the ofcnse as then e:risted." Thus
it will appear that this marginal clause
was not the subject or cause of this fatal
| duol and IF there il still any 6Onht of