Year: 1876

heved that the Legislature haQ aeter
mined 10 reward him literally for faith
iul services, while the Legislature thought
they we're passing an act that would
bring to the State the money that oul
insurance companies paid into Other
States. To understand that law, the
Auditor had gone to the Ohio law to find
out what it was. He read only so much
of that law as suited his in.
terest. He only read 50 far q:
To see that, fee had been
permitted, but failed to read the par,
which provided that said fees belonged tc
tho Treasury. He collected the $237. sc
alluded to above, and though it had be.
longed to the State, he had taken it, and
that he was guilty of sins Of omission and
commission, under the first and second
articles, beyond doubt. --t.


The third article charges corruption
maladminisiration and high misde.
meanor," in that he received 5000 for de.
posting $4,000 received from the B. and
y. r. R., for taxes, in the Merchants
Bank OF Charleston. He had no right to
control this money, and get it into his
control by improper manipulations. All
he had to do was to inform the company
of the amount of their taxes and let the
company pay the money into the Treas
ury. That was his whole duty in the
matter, but he controlled the money
improperly and deposited it whore he did
so he might make another fee.


The Manager here again stated that
the prosecution felt great regret at its be
ing their duty to prosecute, and, there
fore, after they found cut that the
Auditor was right in his transactions
with the LaBelle and Commonwealth
Insurance Companies alluded to in the
5th article, they had dropped the subject
At this point recess was taken.


In the afternoon the Manager resumed
his argument about the $4,000 matter
He further claimed that this money
was not paid to the Bank
by the Auditor as private
individual, because he was not only
Auditor, but also member of the Board
of Public Works, one OF the chief duties
of whom it was to guard the State
money. But even if an unofficial act, it
was still corrupt, and rendered him liable
to impeachment. The Manager then dis
cussed at some length, the question of
"gross immortality" AID claimed that re-
spondent had violated positive law
when he withdrew this sum from bank
paying a high rate o. interest, and
placed it in another paying low rate.
The Manager continued to discuss the
s2.l6O matter, claiming that the
Auditor was guilty of wrong in attempt
ing to deposit this money in his own
name so as to make money of it, and
that he was also guilty of corruption in
his advances to Mr.. J. N. Smith of tn,
First National Bank Of Charleston, when
he approached him Mr.. SMITH on the
subject of making an arrangement to Sc.
cure state deposits in his bank.


The eighth article charging conspiracy
with Treasurer Burdett the manager
stated had been dropped as it could NO
be proven, and after another expression
of sincere regret that high sense o
duty alone compelled him to prosecut
the case, he concluded.


X. hOhhON . Ahu N


He said that the respondent
counsel sympathize profoundly witt
the Honorable Manager who ha
lust closed his argument, IN the deel
affiiction which his share in this prose
cution caused him. 1t was forced upor
the recollection whilst he was delivering
himself of that part of his speech, tha
whom Benjamin f. Butler, who has beer
rudely and impolltely called Beast But
ler." had the lndiscretion to allude tC
President johnson as "criminap
he felt called upon to apologize, and die
apologize, for the use of that word. 1r
this case the respondent has been alluded
TO as a criminal, and in describing hi:
transactions the words "6lthy," "dirty'
and "depraved" have been used. They
seem to be little incompatible witt
that degree of affliction and sorrow which
the honorable Manager expressed in the
conclusion of his remarks.


Counsel prenised what he sup
posed, after oil, is conceded. He
thought it had been conceded
tacitlv, and it NAV have been un
warily, that this is Criminal Court


The counsel here referred to the fact
that a deposition had been ruled out
which would have been admissible If II
were not a criminal proceeding,


Now if 1t be aCriminal Court, and this
be a criminal case, these charges must
admit of some description that will
in some manner bring them within the
puryicw and operation Of some law
From this he surmised that the respond
ent stood here with all those presump-
tiops in his favor which exist in a Grim,
inal case; with all the presumptions OF
innocence which exist in any criminal
cause. 1t then devolves on the Mana
gers to show that the respondent has
committed. if not a crime, If not miss
demeanor, at least something that
NAV be termed An otfen.e against the
law. 1t MIGHT be conceded without fear
without observation-disclosures apprehen'
sion, that if it shall be shown that an Of
fense against any law has been commit
ted. the respondent may be convicted
but he would spine, throughout the argu'
ment. that it must he shown that an OF
f.nse Of some character-either a crime
or. violation of some statute-has been
committed, and that it was done
with some degree Of wrongful intent


The very dubious compliment has beer
paid this Court Of having risen above ail
ordinary modes of trial, by which he sup
posed is meant that this Honorable Court
rises above all ordinary law. Senators
said he. consider the proposlt on
You have beea.told that you have been
fixing precedent which shall efectually
deter any executive officer Of this State
from the temerity Of giving const-uc'
ton to law which he may be called
upon to execute. Certainly this propo.
sition is one of the most extraordinary
and remarkable in its character he hsc
ever heard delivered in court of justic,
or elsewhere; proposition which, if it b
true would Of necessity, prohibit the e1
ecution of any law of this State to whict
a construction had not previously beer
given by some court. 1t can hardly b
denied that whenevera new statute II !,
enacted requiring of any executive OIL
cor the performance of any duty whstso
~. - the nature of things, the office