More Famous Litigation
llf»ing a continuation of some» of I ho famous
lawsuits that have hoon tried in ^iorlli Car¬
olina over a period of many years, inelnd-
М1Ц
hotli
IN MY A RTICI.K Inst week I
briefly sketched a few of (lie famous
eases, both civil and criminal,
which have engaged t ho ntlention of
our courts, but as I pointed out in that
article the eases have been so numer¬
ous and varied that any article is
necessarily fragmentary and cannot
purport but to include just a few of
the hundreds of cases which might
properly be included. Hut in this arti¬
cle I have tried to select jiM a few
additional ones which 1 hope will he
of interest to the public generally.
During the Reconstruction era. car-
]H>tbag legislatures issued State bonds
to the aggregate of more than $20,-
000,000.00, largely in ostensible aid
of railroad construction for railroads
in which the state had an interest,
but the carriers received hut little of
the proceeds, most of which went into
l lie pockets of Littlefield, Swepson
and other carpetbaggers. When Vance
redeemed the state in 1S70, his admin¬
istration undertook to effect n com¬
promise settlement with the holders
of these fraudulent bonds, and most
of the holders accepted the offer then
made by the state authorities. Hut
some holders refused the offer and
made repeated but fruitless effort* to
collect the face value. Finally a
“Houdholdcrs Protective Committee"
was organized, headed by former
United States Senator Marion Hutlcr,
and advertisements appeared in Now
Vork and other mctrojKditan pai>cr8
inviting the holders of all North Car¬
olina bonds to deposit them with the
committee for collection. A scheme
was then concocted under which some
of the bonds were donated to t ho State
of South Dakota and that state
brought suit against North Carolina
in the Supreme Court of the United
States. A battle royal ensued, as the
state administration under the lead¬
ership of Governor Aycoek deter¬
mined to resist payment of the fraudu¬
lent bond* to the last extremity. The
ablest counsel represented the state,
but the Supreme Court of the United
States finally held that the state was
liable to the extent of the stock in the
North Carolina Railroad which had
been pledged as collateral security for
the payment of the bonds, and the
в
criminal and civil
сакс».
By
К.
C. L.AWItENCi:
Court directed the Federal Marshal
to -sell this stock from the steps of
the capitol.
Bitter Opposition
There was much talk at the time
of resisting the authority of this judg¬
ment. and some even talked of calling
out the military force to prevent the
sale of the stock, but cooler counsel
prevailed, and the court issued n an*
persedeas restraining the sale until
the General Assembly could he called
into special session and take action.
This Itody provided the necessary
funds to redeem the railroad stock,
and for the moment the litigation
seemed at an end.
Hut there were a large number of
bonds which were not secured by stock
or other collateral, and in a further
effort to force collection on these bonds,
the holders donated a considerable
quantity in par value to the Republic
of Cuba, and that island Republic
filed a petition in the Supreme Court
of tin- United State'- seeking leave to
institute suit before that tribunal
against our state. Attorney Genera!
Bickett filed an answer demonstrating
the fraudulent nature and character
of the bonds, and supported his an¬
swer by a clear, cogent and convinc¬
ing brief. Moreover the Attorney
(ieneral had a personal interview
with the Cuban Ambassador and eas¬
ily convinced that diplomat that the
Cuban authorities had been deceived
and imposed upon. The Ambassador
communicated with bis Government,
and shortly received instructions to
withdraw bis application for leave to
file suit. Since then no further efforts
have been made to collect upon those
fraudulent bonds and the matter has
fallen into what President Cleveland
so aptly called “innocuous dessetude.”
The Liquor License Case
Williams v. Commissioners was an¬
other interesting case. At that lino-
the statute made it mandatory for the
Hoard of County Commissioners to
i'Mie license to sell intoxicants to any
and all applicants upon proof of their
good character. This statute was in
full force and effect when down in
Robeson County a Hoard of Commis¬
sioners were elected who were person¬
ally dry in their views. They had
hardly taken the oath of office before
some thirty persons from different
section* of the county appeared be¬
fore them seeking license to sell in¬
toxicants, and each of the applicants
was armed with numerous affidavits
of good character, some of which were
signed by ministers of the Gospel.
The attorney for the Commissioners
was .Judge Thomas A. McNeil!, and
bo advised bis client that the bare
fact, that a man made an applica¬
tion for leave to sell intoxicants was
in itself evidence of bad character,
which would justify the hoard in
refusing to issue the desired license!
The astounded applicants employed
the ablest counsel they could find
and sought to secure from the court
a writ of mandamus requiring the
Commissioners to issue the licenses.
Thu matter finally reached the Su¬
preme Court, and that body held that
the question as to whether an ap¬
plicant was of good character or not
was addressed to the sound discre¬
tion of the County Commissioners,
and that the court was not disposed
to interfen- with such discretion.
Robeson was thereby transferred
from the wet into the dry column,
and the precedent thus established
by the court was followed in certain
other counties.
State vs. Cooper
State against Cooper, tried in the
l'Vderal District Court at Wilming¬
ton, was perhaps the most famous
criminal
сане
ever considered by the
Federal court* in our state. Former
Lieutenant Governor William B.
Cooper and bis brother, Thomas E.
Cooper, officers of the Commercial
National Hank of Wilmington, were
indicted upon a large number of
count* for conspiracy to violate the
National Hanking Act. The case was
fir-t tried before Judge Henry Groves
( Continued un page sixteen)
