Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1854-01-25

time terms was the result Of accident. Not soft
was the fruit Of deliberate and enlightened consider
alton. Mr.. EARLE in his report the Legislature,
at the Session of $780, of his actngs in respect to
that ,nltter thus speaks: We also contracted 10
| " sell to Mr. SAMUEL HALE, who is President of the
/" Branch Bank of the State OF Georgia, III Augusta
some unmproved lots and ground, near the end
q OF the Augusta Bridge, on the South Carolina SIDE
"Some misunderstanding, however, arose in the
progress of the negotiation in respect to the e9tcn
of The. conveyance, and in relation to the ground
on ,ohieh the end Of the Bridge and the abutmcR
care built, which MIR. HALE seemed 10 have czpcc-
ted in fee, and which declined conveying in that
/" "way because / supposed the State might think il
"advisable to retain some control orcr the Bridge
"in future The sale to him, therefore, was not
" perfected, but have authority from him 10 make
" an offer to the Legislature, which will be more par
"ticularly explained to your Committee, and which
81 shall recommend to be accepted"
What the precise offer was that hlr. HALE had
authorized to be made, We do directly know, but
it appears sufficiently by the result. This much is
certain-that the special Committee, TO whom the
matter was referred, recommended that MIR. EARLE
BE- authorized to make the proposed sale to SAMUEL
HALE of Augusta :" whi:h was concurred in by both
HouSes-and that within seven days a!tel wards,
EARLE executed to HALE the Deed of 24th Decem-
Der, 1880, already referred to. Let tliat instru
ment be read By the light Of the surrounding cir
cumstances The South Carolina Rail Road was
about to be completed An immense commerce.
it was foresecl would flow into tlre State that
Bridge The State was the owner of the land upon
which stood the structure of the Bridge, and its
abutment within her territory She had just re.
chartered the Bridge and vested it in the Bank Of
the Stale Of GcOrg ga-a corporation under the law
oranolher State, and wholly beyond her jursd ction
and control 4 measure, to say the least, Of most
question iGlc policy. And now, it was proposed to
Sell 10 that Corporation, Cor though in form the sale
was to HALE, it well understood TO be for the
of the Bank.) certain lots of land, including the
spot on which rested the abutment Of the Bridge
1.-THE sale should be made. j, n, the lels;, but
common prudence to retain the Bridge after the cx
pirftion Of the Charter 10 the Bank solely AMI ab-
souely within the control Of the State, uncnlbarass-
cd by any rights or claims spring;ng out Of the
ownership Of the soil, by that Corporation. For
vino coui, or-sce that at the expiration Of that Char
ter the interests OF the State M St not demand i'm
pcra,ivcly, that the Bridge.5wh the franchise, he
vested in another grantee. The learned and able
lawyer who represented the State in that transac-
ton, took care that she sustained no dctrimcnt
What means the passage Of his report referred TO
What else than this, that the vcry-questiun arc
now considering. in The negotiation with Mr..
HALE The one desired the conveyance "a extend
to the centre Of the river and to be in fec whilst the
other proposed to convey only 10 low water mark,
and as to the soil covered by the abutnrnt TO co,l-
vry the same TO the Bank, only during the term Of
its Charter from the State. Thus stood the parties
when the Legislature assembled But the Session
intervencd, and the Bank had obtained renewal
Of the Br.dgc Charter, IFS chief object doubtless in
negotiating for The purchase Of the land And now
the parties met upon middle ground, HALE conscnt-
cd to receive conveyance limited to low water
mark, and EARLE to convey the soil covered by the
Bridge abutment in fee, but with the stipulation that
the same should be used, held and enioycd solely
and exclusively for 4 Bridge abu,mcn, and high
way. The legal effect Of this stipulation can no, be
mistaken. For whose benefit was it? Not the
grantees assuredly. It did not enlarge his rights
On the contrary it rrstictcl them. 1t was in sub
stance reservation By the S,a;e-nay more than
thai, it was formal dedication Of the - parcel of
grouud' conveyed to be the States h;ghway--to b.
an abutmcnt for her Bridgr-,o be- Ind anl held not
merely subject to such public easements, but mpOn
the trust that it should be devoted to such purposes
and uses, solely and exclusively" The City
Council Of Augusta, It's believed have never claimed
any interest in the soil upon whicl, the Bridge is
built. They were party defendant in the case Of
Marlborough, trustee, and others Us. The Bank of
the State Of Georgia and others, in the Court of
Equity Of this State. In their answer in that cause,
their right to the Bridge itself, distinguished from
the franchise in respect it, if intended 10 BE- us
serted as being in fec is placed upon most curious
ground, for they maintain in their own words '' that
so far rclles to the muttrial structure now OK
Z" isting, they hold it by the right Of having caused