⚫servatives for Governor in 1874, said shortly before his death: The success of the Bolters' movement, from which little real good could have come, would have made impossible the co-operation campaign of 1874." From this co-operative movement, as Judge Green saw, lasting benefits must arise. Nay! we see them and feel them already. In his very first struggle with the knaves whom the Union-Herald holds up to scorn, Governor Chamberlain was saved from defeat by the solid vote of the Conservative members of the Legislature and by that alone. Had Whipper been elected Judge of the Charleston Circuit, in spite of Gov. Chamberlain's open opposition and public protest, the Administration would have been paralyzed, and the State would have fallen again into the hands of the plunderers. The Conservative vote, joined to the Independent Republican vote, enabled Gov. Chamberlain, and the better Regular Republicans, to break the Ring and defeat their chosen candidate. This should be answer enough to the charge that the Conservatives would not intervene to save Gov. Ghamberlain from ruin. They did intervene, at a time when their quiescence would have been fatal to the Executive and his supporters. What the Conservatives did at the time of the judicial election, they have continued to do upon every occasion. They have stood squarely by the Administration; they have strengthened Gov. Chamberlain, and, in a measure, enabled Republicanism to lift itself from the slough into which it had fallen. And they have done this from no lust of office or hope of preferment. They have no expectation of reward, other than that which they will share with the citizens of the State when the rod of rascality shall be broken and cast aside. They are animated by a single desire to see the Government of the State in honest, capable, and faithful hands, so that they and theirs may live securely, and enjoy, in peace, what means the fortunes of war may have left them, or industry and energy may win. It is impossible to conceive, nor is there found in the history of American politics, a loftier and more generous position than that which is held by the Conservative citizens of South Carolina. They cling to their political faith and will not desert it; but they look, first of all, to the interests of the State; they recognize honesty and merit wherever they are found, and when they see a fearless and farsighted man, in the ranks of the opposing party, making a gallant stand against the onslaught of thieves and rogues, they group themselves around him, and pledge to him, as they may, their steady and continuous support. Just as long as Gov. Chamberlain is faithful to his own words, so long will the Conservatives, quietly and unostentatiously, give him what aid they can. Their heartiest wish is that he may become what he aspires to be-the Governor, not of a party, but of a united and contented people.

The Attempt to Remove from Office Hon. F. L. Cardozo, the State Treasurer-Governor Chamberlain Condemns the Project, and Defends the Course of the Treasurer-Comments of the Press.

IN

N March, 1875, the Republican majority of the Legislature took proceedings for the removal from office of Francis L. Cardozo, State Treasurer. Mr. Cardozo had been elected in 1872 for a term of four years, and next to the Governor he was the most important State officer. He was an earnest advocate of the nomination and election of Governor Chamberlain, a strong supporter in all ways of his Administration, and, being a welleducated, able colored man, he possessed great and deserved influence. The motives which led to the attack upon him at this time, are fully stated in the documents which follow.

[Special Despatch to the Charleston News and Courier.]

COLUMBIA, March 10th.-The joint committee to-night submitted the address demanding the removal of State Treasurer Cardozo. The address prefers the following charges:

Charge First. Irregularity and misconduct in office.

Specification 1. In funding $978,500 of the hypothecated bonds, which were in the possession of persons not the actual owners thereof, which bonds were not lawfully issued, and were, therefore, not legal obligations of the State.

Specification 2. That the Treasurer did, between June, 1874, and February, 1875, fund $241,011 of detached coupons which matured before July 1, 1871, when he had the means of knowing, and should have known, that the whole of the interest due on the bonds of the State up to that date had been paid, and that said coupons were not entitled to be funded.

Specification 3. That the Treasurer funded $196,485 of coupons which matured between April, 1869, and October, 1871, and which were detached from bonds of the State before and during the period of the hypothecation of the said bonds, and that he should have known that said coupons were the property of the State.

Specification 4. That the Treasurer funded $6,960 of coupons detached from bonds, and which matured before the bonds themselves were issued from the State Treasury.

Specification 5. That the Treasurer funded $69,205 of detached coupons which

matured between January, 1870, and July, 1871, and the bonds from which they were detached having always been the property of the State, and still being in the possession of the State Treasury, marked cancelled and unused.

Specification 6. Diversion of the interest fund, thereby defeating the intent of the Funding Act, and endangering the security guaranteed to the creditors of the State. Charge Second. Wilful neglect of duty, in failing to make monthly reports to the Comptroller General of the cash transactions of his office, which neglect of duty dates from October 31, 1874.

For these reasons the General Assembly, by a vote of two thirds of each house, respectfully address your Excellency and ask that the Hon. F. L. Cardozo be removed from the office of State Treasurer.

The committee recommend that a copy of the charges be served upon the Treasurer, and that he be required to appear before both houses in joint assembly on Tuesday, the 16th instant, to make answer to the same. The committee also promise to submit rules of procedure. The report was presented in both houses and adopted.

With this despatch the following report of a conversation with Governor Chamberlain on the subject was published:

COLUMBIA, S. C., March 10, 1875.-In obedience to instructions received from you by telegraph, I waited on Governor Chamberlain today, when the following conversation took place on the subject of the charges against State Treasurer Cardozo :

Reporter. There is a great public interest felt, Governor, to know your views of the case of Mr. Cardozo, and I have called to inquire if you are willing to make them known through The News and Courier.

Governor. Yes, sir; I see no good reason why I should not answer your inquiries fully. The matter is one that interests me beyond any thing else which has occurred during my Administration, and I have not failed to read every word that has appeared in the various documents connected with it. Of course every fair-minded man holds himself open to the consideration of any new facts or evidence which may be added to the case, or any new arguments based on the facts already developed. Premising this, I do not hesitate to say that I have entire confidence in Mr. Cardozo. Men, many men, friends of mine, have come to me and said, "Don't mix yourself up in this fight. It is no affair of yours, and you ought to keep clear of it." Now, what sort of advice is this? What do such men take me for? Do they think I am going to sit by and see injustice done to a State officer without opening my mouth? It would be damnable cowardice. If I knew to-day there was not another man in the world who would speak for Mr. Cardozo, I would all the more stand by him. I have n't come into this office expecting a bed of roses. I am not half so anxious to make friends or avoid enemies as I am to do right; and until evidence, facts, compel me to lose faith in Mr. Cardozo, he shall have my confidence and my personal and moral support in every form. Well, sir, I have examined all the evidence yet adduced, and I find nothing to shake my faith in Mr. Cardozo's honesty.

Reporter. Let me ask you, at this point, Governor, what has been heretofore your estimate of Mr. Cardozo?

Governor. I have known Mr. Cardozo intimately since last summer. He was an early supporter of mine for my present position. I think I have known his aims and plans, and I say without qualification that I have never heard one word or seen one act of Mr. Cardozo's which did not confirm my confidence in his personal integrity and his political honor and zeal for the honest administration of the State Government. On every occasion, and under all circumstances, he has been against fraud and jobbery, and in favor of good measures and good men. The public do not know the pressure which has been brought to bear upon me in this office to make me yield my views of public duty. If I had known it myself beforehand, I would never have dared to take the office. But in the midst of it all, when I could count all the Republicans who seemed to sympathize with me on the fingers of one hand, there was one man who never faltered, who never failed to come unasked and stand at my side, and that man was Francis L. Cardozo. I tell you, sir, I should despise myself if I did not stand by such a man till the last gun was fired, unless I was driven to believe him a hypocrite and scoundrel.

Now, sir, I saw this storm gathering long ago. I knew that any man who did his duty as Treasurer, who lent himself to no jobbery, and had no private ends to serve, would make himself the most unpopular man in South Carolina. Cardozo knew it too. I confess I did not expect to see the elements which view the public service as a mere chance to make money, able to make such headway as they are now apparently making against Mr. Cardozo. I did hope for better things, but I also expected to find a howl and outcry against any man who did his duty by the Treasury. I do not wish to be understood as implying that all who are opposed to Mr. Cardozo are consciously striking down a faithful public officer; but every man here in Columbia knows that the real force which urges on this attack upon Mr. Cardozo is not a desire to guard the Treasury. I speak now what every man confesses to me when I ask him the question.

Reporter. But, Governor, what do you say of the attitude of the Conservatives toward Mr. Cardozo ?

Governor. Well, sir, I think they intend to do justice to Mr. Cardozo in the end; and so I think of very many Republicans. I do not wonder at their voting for raising a committee to prepare an address. That is probably now the only way to bring the whole case to a point where justice can be done. I am bound to say that the Conservatives have acted with great political generosity and patriotism towards me and my Administration. I believe they will do what they think just by Mr. Cardozo, and their votes in this matter, so far, indicate no more, in my judgment, than a wish to have the case fully tried. I cannot believe their vote on appointing the committee represents their probable vote on the address of removal, unless new facts are developed.

Reporter. Will you be kind enough to give me your views of the case, as presented up to this time, against Mr. Cardozo?

Governor. Yes, sir, that is what I desire to do. The charges against Mr. Cardozo embrace two general points: First, the funding of certain bonds at one time hypothecated in New York, and the coupons attached to such bonds; and second, the diversion of the interest fund.

Now, with regard to the bonds and coupons alleged to have been wrongfully funded, the Act to reduce the volume of the public debt makes no exception of any of these bonds or coupons. All are exchangeable under that Act. If these bonds and coupons were outstanding at the time of the passage of that act, then they were, by the terms of the Act, exchangeable. In funding them Mr. Cardozo simply folfowed the terms of the Act. If, however, any of these bonds or coupons were unlawfully outstanding, and knowledge of this were brought home to Mr. Cardozo, he might well have refused to fund them, as he did do in the case of some coupons. I do not think that Mr. Cardozo would have been guilty of any offence, if he had funded any and all coupons which were made fundable by the terms of the Act. A strict and literal compliance with the law would have been all that could have been strictly required of him. If he was in collusion with any parties presenting bonds or coupons illegally or fraudulently outstanding, then he is guilty. But I do not see any such evidence, nor any evidence pointing that way.

The attempt to hold Mr. Cardozo responsible for funding the bonds and coupons reported by the Dunn committee, last summer, as hypothecated without lawful authority is unjust to the last degree. All the information now in the possession of the public respecting these bonds was presented to the Treasurer and Attorney General last summer, and the Attorney General states in his last annual report that he did not consider it important enough to cause him to advise that those bonds should not be funded. On the contrary, he expressly defends the funding of all those bonds. Why, then, is it now attempted to punish Mr. Cardozo for doing what the law directed, and what the Attorney General advised? This particular matter was likewise laid before me last summer, and I advised that there was no reason why those bonds should not be funded. And I say the same thing now.

Bring home to Mr. Cardozo any knowledge of any fraud, connect him in any way with any intention to do wrong to the State, convict him of a wilful neglect of duty or an unwarrantable refusal to act upon any evidence of illegality in the bonds or coupons presented to him, and you have a case against him. But I see nothing, nothing whatever, which gives color to any charge of fraud or evil intent on his part.

As to the diversion of the interest funds I see still less ground for the removal of Mr. Cardozo. Look at the general features of this charge. The State has n't lost a dollar. That the law is susceptible of the construction given to it by Mr. Cardozo is apparent, both from an examination of the Act and from Mr. Melton's letter to Mr. Cardozo. That Mr. Cardozo acted also from good motives is likewise evident. Where, then, is the ground for any charge involving moral turpitude, or rendering him worthy of removal?