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

ended by circumstances extraordinary? lfIllcre
were any persons, who abuvc all others, were clcar-
" and individually undcscrving Of such boon, it
was, under the circumstances, the City Council Of
Augusta. They failed in their petition. So did
NleSsrs. JONES Il KExNEDv in theirs. The Legis-
laturc did not grant the prayer of either.
Another year elapsed The Session Of 1858 was
come and JONES & kESNEDY again presented their
Memorial lor IN amendment Of their Charter. The
City Council Of Augusta were prtioncrs no longer.
What the Legislature in 1852 had refused to give,
they had boldly taken, and strongly cntrcnchcd un-
der cover Of the Georgia Statute of 1910, they had
in the interim. continued Ia appropriate tc franchise
Of tolls in respect 10 the Bridge, in as ample man
ner as though they had received a Charter from the
State, in the most absolute and exclusive terms
What now, ! ask did it become the Legislature. Of
Sunth Carolina 10 dol The high and jealous spirit
Of Georgia, in respect to her crriiorial limits ad-
1ponishrd them 10 be on their guard also. She had
had aqucst;on Of disputed boundary with Alabama,
US to the Chatahoochc, aud the Whole Of tha, river
along her border, had been adjuGgcd TO be within
her territory. She is now con,endmg in TIC SUI
preme Court Of the Y. S., with The State of Florida,
for Southern boundary, that rims almost within
cannon shot Of the Gulf Of Mexico. by the course
.ofthe City Council of Augusta, we also were IN
rolved in a controversy with her in respect to our
boundary on the Savannah. We-e we 10 remain
passive until unlawful possession had ripcncd into
right? For five years the State had submitted to
epractical extension her terrt'ri OF law OF
Georgia-for five years to the usurpatiun by the
City Council Of Augusta, her undouElcd franchise.
We're to suffer the ancient boundaries ut her ter
Fitory to be curtacd, aud the greatest OF her avi.
gable rivers, nt its most important point. TO be with
drawn from her jurisdiction? The Legislature OF
South Carolina were constrained 10 act. They could
not say, there is controversy between certain par
ties in respect to this Bridge, and will remain
neutral and do nothing. To do nothing was pre-
cseIy what the City Council Of augusta desired
They practically in the possession Il" the States
anchisc, and not Ia make an effective grant to the
Assgnccs of SHuLrz Il AlCkISHIE, was in effect To
1iye TO the City Council Of Augusta. There WAS, ]
maintain, no other alternative The State was coll
strained, rs matters stood, 10 grant 10 one or the
other, for not 10 grant TO JONES IL KESHEDY ws 10
give To the City Council of Au. .ustu. Ought she 10
iaye preferred the Iatter7 They were, repeat, the
very last persons, to whom such grant ought to
have been made The State could not have lIndc it.,
under the circumstances. without forgetting cr own
sclf-rcsprct But more than this. JONES s. KENNEDY
were the only persons to whom the .Ctatc could
Justly grant the franchise. They had succeeded TO
all the rights of SnuLrz & AlckINSIE, under the
Act Of 1919. Tia, Act conferred right 10 ihc
franchise though clng9cd with condition as 10 'hc
enjoyment Of the profits. VIII it be said That .\c;
was in farm merely, but not in substance, grant
/ If JONES & kENNEDY before the l,te Act Of this
State had assigned 10 the City Council Of Augusta,
ali their interest in the Charter, under the Act Of
lS49, could not the Ciy Council Of Augusta have
forthwith set up n Toll-gatc, AT the South Carolina
end Of the Bridge and proceeded to collect the tolls
prescribed by that Act? M ono can deny it
Then there was substance in the grant under the
Act of lS49? The State had gone too far TO re-
cede, and unti IA years had elapsed from lIlI De-
cembcr, 1913, she could not have transferred the
franchise to another, without violating her contract,
and revuking her own grant to SnuLTz & AckISNIE.
But our Act of lSi5 has been referred TO- which
provided that from and after the expiration ol the
Charter 10 the Bank of rhe State of Georgia, the
franchise in respect to the Bridge. SHOULD br vested
in the South Carolina Rail Road Company, and that
that Company should make compensation 10 tue City
Council of Augusta, Tor the portion Of the Bridge
within the territory Of this State. The sole Obj ct
of that Act 10 give 10 III: South Carolina Rll
Road Company strong position in their ncg"tl'-
tious for the privilege Of CRUISING the river and the
provision as to compensation was undoubtedly
intended to render the Act the less Objectionable 10
Augusta who, it was known, claimed the Bridge,
under her Charter from Georgia.
THE whole movement was 4 failure The South
Carolina Rail Road Company unwilling Ia, incur lh"
displ.asurc of Augusta, formally refused 10 accept
the grant, and the Act became nu'lily. have
first 10 remark that the claim for compensation re-
cosnizcd BY that Act, is wholly unionn'"'