The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1902-12-19
THE NEW AND OBSERVER, FRIDAY MORNING. DEC 49, 1902.


@. Do you know whether Mr. Peck
ham was employed at the suggestion Of
Mr. Ricaud?
tSame objection on part of counsel fer
complainanD
A. | will answer this question by say
ing that l do not remember that it was
at Mr. Ricaud's suggestion, and hardly
think it was, but it may have been and
/ will further say that, although l have
chosen to answer the question that do
not admit that it is competent, because
il involves communications and trans
actions between the attorneys and the
attorneys and clients, which are privi-
legged I will further state since think
ing a little further about one of your
former questions that my impression is
that Mr.. Peckham was employed, or con-
suited with regard to these second mort
gage bonds sometime in March 1901.
@. Did you consult the Schaeffer Bros.
or either of them, or any one represent
ing them about the feasibility Of bring
ing a suit on these second mortgage
bonds in the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
complainanD.
A. While / hardly think / would have
consulted them, as l do not believe they
would have known what was talking
about, but if they consulted with me- or
if YOU mean to ask if there were con-
situations between us, l answer that they
were the consultations of attorney and
client, and as such they were privileged,
and that being privileged l would have
onto iYlx No
such right unless the privileges were
waived by the client l, therefore, decline
to answer the question.
@. Have you been employed as counsel
for the State of South Dakota?
(Same objection on part Of counsel for
complainanD.
A. NO, sir.
@. Are you of counsel at all for the
State of South Dakota?
A. No, sir.
G. Are you of counsel for any party
in this suit other than Salter?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
complainanO.
A. You know very well, Judge Merrl-
mon, that Salter is a representative OF
class in this suit, and that class is the
second mortgage bond holders. Salter &
Salter represent q class, and l, with my
associate represent Salter.
@. Then you do appear in this suit for
all the second mortgage bond holders?
(Same objection on part Of counsel for
complainD.
A. Well, l appear for such of them as
are represented l appear for them so
far as Salter can represent them.
O. And the bonds held by the com
plainant in this suit are of that charac-
ter, second mortgage bonds?
A Yes, they are second mortgage
bonds.
O. SO that the parties for whom you
appear and the complainant in this suit
have q common cause against the State
of North Carolina?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
complainanD.
A. All that is a matter of law, and the
question is answered by the general law
and the pIeadings in this case.
O. Do you know the fact that Mr..
Ricaud appears for the State of South
Dakota?
(same objection on part of counsel for
complainanD.
A. l do not.
@. Have you heard him say he did or
did not?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
comrlainanD.
A. Well I am very sure that he does
not.
G.. You were not of counsel for any one
of course, when you were Governor oil
the State?
(same objection on part of counsel for
complainant)
A. No, sir.
O. I ask YOU then if in the converse
lions which occurred between you ana
Ricaud and Mr. Busbee while you were
governor of the State, with reference TO
the memorial of the Schaeffers to the
General Assembly of the State, 1t was
not stated by one of the other of them
that in the event that they were not
successful Of the memorial, and could
not sue in the Supreme court OF the
State, steps would be taken by the
Schaeffer Brothers to have a suit brought
bv some State in the Supreme court OF
the United States against the State of
North Carolina on these bonds?
(Same objection on part of the counsel
fer complainantO
A. think not.
O. Did you not hear that question dis
cussed at that time between Mr.. Ricaud
and Mr. Busbee or any one else?
(Same objection on part of counsel for
complainant)
A. Well, it is possible that there may
| have been something said about the
rights of sovereign to bring suits just
as lawyers would discuss question. but
my recollection is that these gentlemen
| in all their talk with me were con-
| templating a suit in the Supreme court
of North Carolina, and that they after
| wards then abandoned that little while
before the Legislature met in 1901, and
made their memorial.
@. Do you know who suggested to
Simon Schaeffer Brothers the policy Of
donating ten of these bonds to the State
| of South Dakota, or any other State, or
any other number of bonds, with view
to acquiring a jurisdiction in the Supreme
court of the United States against the
State of North Carolina for the collec-
| ton of these second mortgage bonds?
| (Same objection on part of counsel for
| complainant.)
A. / do not know of any such sugges-