Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1854-08-17
The Augusta Bridge Case.


Augusta.vs. JOKES g. KENNEDY.
The City Council of Augusta, in the State Of
Georgia. VS.. James Jones and Joseph j. Ken
ncdy, citizens Of South CaroIina-Bil for In
= junction and Relief
The present is an application made by the
City Council Of August in the State of Geor-
ga, for writ of Injunction. to be directed to the
defendants, James Jones and Joseph j. Kennedy,
cnjoining and restraining them from disturbing
the complanants' franchise, or demanding toll OF
persons passing the complanants' bridge over
the Savannah river, or molesting any person or
persons on account of the use Of the said bridge
The bill alleges that by the Convention of
Beaufort, concluded between the States of South
Carolina and Georgia, on the 26th of April A..
d. 1877, the boundary between the States of
South Carolina and Georgia is declared in the
following terms, that is to say: the most north
lhern branch or stream of the river Savannah,
from the sea or mouth of such stream 10 the tork
or confluence of the rivers now called Tugaloo
and Krowee. and from thence the most northern
branch or stream of The said river Tugaoo till it
intersecls the northern boundary line of South
Carolina, reservng all The islands in the said
rivers Savannah and Tugaooto Georgia, shall
forever hereafter form the separation, limit and
boundary between the States of South Carolina
and Georgia"
That the language Of the sail convention is
open TO question Of construction, and Georgia
claims that the meaning Of the terms the most
northern branch or streams OF the river" is the
same as the most northern part of the stream (;
whereas South Carolina has always contended
that her boundary extends " ad medium fe dque"
with the exception of the islands which all be-
long to Georgia.
The Bill further shows that Gazaway La.
mar, being seized and possessed of the lands on
both sides of The Savannah river whrrcon the
Bridge between the City Of Augusta and Edge:
field District is built, aud of the bridge connect;
ing the said land, and possessed of right TO de-
mand tolls for crossing the said bridge as an ex-
elusive privilege granted by the States of Geor-
9ia and South Carolina, respectively, first TO Hen
~ Schultz and John McKinne, and then to the
Bank of the State of Georgia, by deed bearing
date 2lst Of May, A. D., 1870, for the price of
our hundred thousand dollars, conveyed the land
and bridge and the right of taking tolls 10 The
complainans. That the title of the compliments
to the bridge, and the land on both sides of the
river on which it is built, was acknowledged by
the Stale of South Carolina in the year lS45; in
Which year the Legislature of South Carolina
passed an Act, entitled San Act to incorporate
|
and amend certain Charters, and for other pur-
poses,"-by the Goth and 9th sections whereof
it was enacted, that the charter of the Augusta
Bridge, after the expiration of the existing grant
should be vested in the South Carolina Railroad
Company but required as condition precedent
to the right of taking toll, the grantees 10 pay to
the complainants, by the names of the proprie-
tors of The present BRIDGE the value of that part
Of the bridge which lies in South Carolina, and
directed that the value should be ascertalned by
Commissioners.
That in lS4S, after the charter granted by the
State of South Carolina to those under whom
The complainants' claim had expired, the COM
pIainanls rights were admitted by the Legislature
of South Carolina by the 22d section of an Act
TO establish certain roads, bridges, and ferries,
for by that Act the Legislature granted the right
of taking toll ut the said bridge TO Henry Schultz
and John Mck'nne, under Il proviso, that the
said grant should have no validity, unless the lit
igatiUn for the property of the bridge, in the Su-
prcne Court OF the United States, should be
terminated by Il judgement againStlt lthc complain
antS,-whirh suit was heard ut January Term,
lS49, and the complainants title 10 the bridge
sustained.
That after this judgement in the complainants
favor as the proprirtors of the bridge, The Legis-
alurc of South Carolina by the 26th section of
an Act to establish certain roads, bridges and fer
rics, removed the condition on the grant to
Schultz and McKinne and authorised them to
take toll for passing the complainants bridge
from II persons goiHg from South Carolina, on
condition, nevertheless, that no person should be
exposed TO double toll and that under color of
this authority, the defendants rs assignees of
| Henry Schultz and john Mckinne, attempted to
| levy tolls, but were restrained by an INDUCTION
from the Court of Equity in South Carolina, on
the ground that the condition was not complied
with.
The bill further alleges that the compiainants
being seized of land on both sides of The river
bv Il legal bona iide title, and Possessed of the
bridge connecting those parcels Of land By pur-
chase under the original builders, and authorized
by the laws of Georgia to take tolls for passing
the said bridge, the complainants' rig ght TO their
bridge is exclusively, and any pretence by which
travellers are made 10 pay 10 other persons for
the Use of complanants' bridge is 4 plain distur-
bance of their franchise.
Yet the defendants, under pretence Of an au-
thorily from the State of South Carolina, have
compelled passengers using compainants bridge
10 pay illegal tolls to them, and still continue to
do so. That the complaulnts have commenced
an action at law against the defendants for dis
lurbance of their franchi,e-and that the com
painanls might we'll have hoped that the drfen-
dants would have desisted from levying toll from
passengers using complainants' bridge until the
right was tried ut law. But that now so it is,
the defendants, to annoy and injure the complain
ants, pretend that the Augusta Bridge has been
transferred to them by the State of South Caro-
lima, by virtue of the 9th section of an Act to
establish certain roads, bridges End ferries passed
goth of December, a. D., 1853, in the following
term, that is to say, that the defendants assignees
of Henry Schultz and John LcKinne, be and
they are hereby authorized TO collect the tolls
prescribed by the 2lst section of the act to es-
tabIish certain roads, bridges and ferries, passed
18Th December, A. D., ls4S, from all persons
passing from either side over the bridge across
the Savannah River at Hamburg and Augusta
provided, however, that nothing herein contained
shall in anywise impair or prejudice any right or
property claimed by the City Council of Angus
ta in respect to the one-half of the material sruc
ture OF the said bridge within the territorial limits
of this State. Which act, the compainants' in
sists confers no right on the defendants because
of the defect OF power in the Legislature of
South Carolina to deprive. the complanants of
their property, and transfer the same to another
without their consent, except by due course Of
the laws of the land
From the foregoing general outline of the
compliments bill, it appears that the question of
boundary between the States of South Carolina
and Georgia is made rs having an important
bearing on the complainanls' rights. But for the
purpose Of the present motion do not deem it