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

... ... .. ..v... the ,vr,urr rrgIl ana as that is
conferred not otherwise than by their Charter, it re-
suits that the title set up by the City Council them
Scres, necessarily sub cct to the limitation of that
Charter. iii be designed as the deduction Of
title in fec, It is incomprchcnsible and meaningless:
and intcg mt ncn must marvel that for q property
now alleged TO be indisputaJiy theirs, the City
Council of Augusta were then utterly unable to sug-
gcst title, save one so feeble and rickct,y that
breaks down in its very statement
Their rebuilding the Bridge in 1910, it is clear,
could give them no right to it beyond the il years
| of their Charter. They claimed under the Charter
To the Bank OF the State OF Georgia which iu terms
provided that =" if any accident should happen to the
said Bridge hereafter us TO render it impaSsa-
"be, and they fal to repair the some within two
I" years from the time of such accident happening,
+" then The Charter hereby granted should be vnid.n
Wh"n the Bridge carried away by the flood Of
1910, they bound therefore, rebuild it. 1t
was part Of the bargain between them and the
Statc--a Part Of the very price they were 10 pay for
the Charter.
Had there existed any prctcnce of claim on their
part to the sUil upon which the Bridge is bnt, it
could not have escaped the eye of the able Solicitor
who drew their answer Mr. llAYNE. the Attorney
General Of this State in his able Report 10 the Irgs-
latuye at the Session of 1882, upon the subject Of
the Augusta Bridge and the navigation Of the Sa-
vannah river, comes TO the conclusion that the soil
'upon which stands the Bridge, except the aLu-
"mcnt, which is highway, is unques,ionaby the
iproperty of South Carolina" Surely these COLI
sidcrations were sufficient TO Justify the Legislature
in regarding the portion of the Bridge within the
territory of this State as her property. But much
more than all this WAS adducrd TO establish her title.
The Judgment of the Court in the case referred
to is direct 10 that very point. To understand its
bearing and effect it should be borne in mind that
the suit was brought in le4l, by IARBunouGH, as
Trustee Of SHuLTz, against the Bank Of tine State Of
Of Georgia, G.. b. LAMAR and the Cily Council of
Augusta The bill alleged that in 1921, SnULrz
had been unlawfully elected from the possession Of
the Bridge and claiming that the Bridge was then,
Of right the property Of SliULrz, prayed that it be
sold and an account Of the tolls ordered for the bcnc
fit of his creditors.
Chancellor HARPER, Gan il.ustrious name y heard
the cause on the Circuit, and in his Decree after
discussing various questions that arose, proceeds TO
consider the claim OF SHULTz, (supposing To have
been unmparcl by any release or sale, or act Of
his,l to the structure Of the Bridge, now that his
Charter had expired; and thus he diSposes Of it:
Then as to any right Of the Complanants in the
Bridge ITSELF it would be sufficient to say, that all
" the Complainant SuuLrz's right and interest
"thcren had passed away by the expiration Of his
" Charter The franchise exclusive privilege
WHICH cONSuueQ IL HIS property, io oiiHer CAlSS,
g and the material structure is attached 10 and
'' part of the soil and 1rould be The property Of
" the States, the ouncrs Of that soil, if the fran
'' elise had not been reue,oe& to another"
Nothing could be more expcit-t is a Judgment
of the Court full and direct upon the very question
we arc considering. The claim Of SuLrz, as con-
sidered by the Chancellor, and rejected by his De-
cree, is the very claim now set up by the City Couu
ell of Augusta Both claims arose under Charter
expressed in the same form of words, for thu Char
ter to the Bank of the State Of Georgia. under which
tile City Council Of Augusta claims, is but renewal
of the Charter granted originally TO SrULTz-and if
his claim to the structure of the Bridge ended with
the one Charter their claim undoubtedly expired with
the other. 1t results therefore, that the material
structure Of the Bridge, from the centre Of the river
to its termination on the Northern bank, belongs te
the State OF South Caroina-that in respect TO any
interest in the vested in the City Council Of
Augusta they were the tenants of this State,
under her Charter the Bank of the State of Gcor
gia-and that upon the expiration af that Charter,
on the 18th Dec lS4S the ST. te hal perfect legal
right to dispose Of that portion of the Bridge as she
thought ft
will not enter into argument to provo that the
central line or thread Of the Savannah is the true
boundary between the States of Georgia and South
Carolina | assume it to be so. 1t is scarce regard
ed as an open question on this side the-river. The
State then was the lawful owner Of the portion of
the material Bridge within her territory-and now