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

"a. ..~.. vrn ~ peHHc III years, D'iusr up
on land belonging to her proprietor. and in con
slelation Of their doing so, grants them the prvl-
lcgc during that term. Of taking certain prescribed
tolls. They erect and keep up the Hridge, and re-
ccive the tolls during the term Of th"ir Charter
The Bridge is a fixture and belongs 10 the State,
proprietor Of the snil, and at the expiration Of their
Charter they demand compensation for the struc-
tule. The answer is. they have received it already
The tus that were granted them. was the price pad
bv the State Was it not enough? The one hall
the cost Of the Bridge was "a little UPWARDS Of
sixty-fvc hundred dollars" willie tho one half Of
the tolls received during the ii years Of their Char
ter were not less, il is believed, than two hundred
thousand dollars. Apnin-by the very terms OF
their Charter, ,hcy were to cree, and keep up ihr
Bridge at their own cxpcrsc;n but if The State
has 10 pay them for it, then the Bridge has hcrn
built undoubtedly not ut their expense, but herS.-
The provision Of the Act Of lS45, rs to c"nipen-
sation it is clear therefore, was drawn IN mls"o'I-
ception or disregard of the actua! rights o the state
Nevertheless the State through that Act has spoken.
Let her words stand fast. What then, ask. is the
equitable claim for compensation admitted by the
Act referred To? The Act Of 1915 contemplated
that Immediately after the expiration, in lSS, of the
Charter to the Bank Of the Stale of Georgia. under
WHOM, the City Council Of Augusta claimed, the ).
Carolina Rail Road Company should pass int" the
possession of the franchise. in respect to the Bridge"
and in that cuent--in that state Of things II rrcoS-
nized tho equitable claim OF the City Council of Au-
gusta, fnr compensation as to the portion OF The
Bridge within the territory OF this State. lie con-
ccsson by that Act, of any equitable claim to conf
pensation, has this cxtent-anl no more Are the
CITY Council Of Augusta, nolo in the position III
which they Stood ut the expiration OF their Charter
from This State, in December, 1918? Far removed
from it are they. For five years. without any color
of right under the law Of South Carolina, they have
appropriated the entire tolls for passage across the
Bridge-tos amounting in the aggregate 1t IS be-
levcd to not less than one hundred and thirty thnls-
and dollars, to the one half Of which the State OF 3
Carolina was undoubtv entitled. Is not Tins sui
fcient compensation! In their Answer to the Bill
exhibited against them by YARBoEorGi, Trustee, IN
1871. the City Council Of Augusta thus speak
"Thesc Defendants admit the original buildng oi
the said Bridge. and these Defendants can not be-
Sieve the same cost S73 SEQ: since tho building
Of the same during the prevalence of equally high
prices, cost these Defendants but lille npcards
"of thirteen thousand dollars"
The account then is thus to be stated. The ono
half the cost of tho Bridge would he some sixty five
hundred dollars while the one halfthe tolls received
since Dee. lS4S Ito shy nnIhing of the SlOO0ho
paid them by the South Carolina Rail Road Com
pany in great part as q consideration for loss OF IT.
turc to) would amount to somo sixty five thousand
dollars IF the State of S. Carolina had exhibited her
bill of complaint against them in the Court ct Cham
ccry for nm account OF the tolls, and they had had all
the ad vantage Of being purchasers in possession With
out notice of her legal title. what is the utermosi
they could have clamedl What more than this to set
off the value Of one half The structure of the Bridge.
against the amount Of unauthorized tolls they had
received What ground Of complaint then have
they, when they hive received already tcn-cld the
compensation that would be awarded them in
Court Of equity and good conscience And that
compensation they have received to all practical in
tents and purposes The State fnrbcars to reclaim
the unauthorized tolls they have appropriated and
the Assignees OF SruLTz & MckINSIE are, under
their Charter, empowered to collect only the small
and reduced tolls hereafter TO accrue. The claim
of the CITY Council Of Augusta, for equitable COM
pensatioi mao, maintain therefore, is utterly aud
essentially different from the claim recognized by
the Act Of lS45 No recognition of.sucl claim is
contaned in The Act Of the last Session OF tho le-
gsturc, because il was believed to have been origin
ally without foundation in justice or law-becauselt
was regarded, to all practical purposes, as amply
satisfied and paid-and because if such an equity in
their favor ever snbsistcd it has been etiectuay re-
PEELED and demolished by other and opposing equl-
ties on the part Of the State.
Tho franchise or right to take toll for passage
across bridge. is n separate and distinct thing
from the bridge itself 1t does not belong to the
owner of the bridge or Of the land, upon which
the bridge is erected by virtue Of his legal property