Year: 1878




He Upholds the Consolidation ACT as


Accepted by the Democratic Party


as Binding In Law.


From the Ne,cs and Courier.


The subject of debate in the
House boing the report of the bond
commission, section third, advocat~
ing the reputation of bonds OK
changed for fraudul ell tly detached
coupons, WAS roll.,


Mr.. G.lillard, of Fairfield, took the
floor in favor of striking out the Soc
ton, and for over an hour held tho
attention Of tho House, while he de-
ivered what was really mastery
effort He started out by stating
that there were grounds which
should influence every member of
the House to strike out not only
the section under discussion, but
every section in the resolution. He
would, he said, cast not one word Of
reflection upon the commission. The
House had imposed upon them a
responsibility which they had dis
charged faithfully and ably in all
respects. Having thus discharged
their duty, he saw no reason why
the commission itself should not
vote to sustain the Consolidation
Act as a tinality, if that course was
satisfactorily showed to be the only
safe ard honorable adjustment of
the debt. They were not invested
with any plenary powers to deter
mino what portion of this debt
should be paid, and what rejected /;
but simply to report the facts as
they found them, and leave the de
cision Of the matter to the General
Assembly. Mr.. Gaillard then went
on to show that it was to discover
the truth, OF falsity, of the rumors
then ahoat concerning the issuing
of duplicate and forged bonds by
the Rept'bliea9 officials, that the
commission hW been appointed,
together with an investigation into
what bonds were authorized to be
issued under the Consolidation Act
itself. The commission having
discharged it's duty in these respects,
the report which they had presented
to the General Assembly showed, in
substance and essence, that the
Consolidation Act had beGn fully
complied with. Having thus touched
upon the preliminary facts connect
cd with the great subject before
him, Mr., Gaillard went on to show
thot the House should


ABIDE BY TINE CONSOLIDATION ACT


for the following reasons, ench of
which he elaborately illustrated and
argued Eirst, because it was q
compromise with creditors at fifty
cents on tho dollar of conflicting,
doubtful and fraudulent claims
against the State of South Carolida.
The very essence and spirit of such
q compromise, and the only induce
ment that could have effected an
agreement with the creditors, was
that it should be final and bona tide.
If there had been no suspicion of
fraud and irregularity ON the one
side, and no understanding; of q fnal
and honorable settlement on the
other, there could have been no
compromise. The people Of South
Carolina were rojoiced at the set
item, mt. The daily press spoke ont
almost unanimously III terms OF
satisfaction, and the creditors came
forward and surrendered fifty per
cent. of their claims, upon the dis
tinct understanding that they
would be made secure of the O her
h If It was folly to talk of strik
ing out this or that section, wnen
the people of South Carolina were
BOUND BY EVERY TIE


moral, legal equitahs, to stand by
that Consolidation Act as final
settlement and final and honorable
agreement between herself and
her creditors. Secondly, The
House should abidS by the settle
neht of the act because it was con-
stmmatea by the competent au-
thority oA the State at that time !;
because the compromise was effect
ed by the sovereignty of South
Carolina and was announced to the