Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1854-08-24

|
had the full power to do so, having parted with no
portion Of the soil covered by it, and having formal
y dedicated 10 its use, and that Of the public. Il high
way leading to it, and constituting HALE the Trus.
Tee for tl.at purpose. Nor lALE, and those he
represented, any losers by this operation, the spot Of
ground being doubtless worth to them during the
continuance of their Charter, ten times the amount
of the consideration paid BY thcm Tor it.
Did Judge EARLE ever execute any other or
better conveyance than the one we are now con-
silcring? If so, it is incumbent upon the City
Council of Augusta 10 exhibit it, and his au-
thority for making it. Judge EARLE was too wise
man, and understood the interests Of the State
Of South Carolina, too well, to make, in the ad-
sencc of all authority any conveyance Of the ground
in question, other than that which dedicated for
ever, to the use of the State Of South Carolina
and the public, as highway, rcscrving all the in
tcrcst she POSSESSED in the structure iisrg. and
the sol which i covered a therefore, that HALE
his heirs and assigns took under The decd Of Judge
EARLE, was The highway lca'!ins to the Bridg"
which they hold foreccr, in tru$t, for the use Of
the public! let them make the most Of it!
SunIcthns however is said in the memorial :bou;
the Bridge itself, passing under this deed by imph
catOa. because the material structure necessary
10 the enjoyment Of ile spot conveyed. Can any
position bc more absurd? Why, according to this
doctrine, when man conveys cart, his horse asu
passes Ly implication in the same conveyance,
though expressly rescrvc'h because horse is essen
;ia To the use of cart Besides, BY the terms Of
the decd HALE, his heirs and assigns. to hold,
while the public were to enjoy the use
But let lis inquire further into the title Of the City
Council Of Augusta 10 that portion OF this structure
within the limits Of South Cal DINA. 1t is undcn a.
bic that they derive their title directly 1--WE assume
of course, that the author Of the memorial is not in
earnest in claiming il under The deed 10 llALE) from
GAzAwAY B. LAMAR, who was the arcnce OF the
l3anl, Of the State Of Georgia, who were the pur-
chascrs tundcr sale for lurccusurr Of the interest
of SmuLrz & MclIxSIE. Now let US what title
SmuIrz e CoopER, the original grantees, derived
from the State of South Carolina. We quote from
the Act Of our legislature passed in 1913. confer
ring the Charter upon these persons. The clause
reads rs follows:
"Tlat Henry SIIuLTz and LEWIS ConPER, are
hereby empowered, at their own cAp nee, to bu III Il
| toll bridge over the Savannah River; ana that the
same e. e. the tOH bridgc) be- vested in the SAID
Henry SIiuLTz AMI LEWIS COorER. their heirs and
assigns, Jor and during the term Of trenty-O"c
years."
Now we would ask what title the Bank Of the
State Of Georgia Iuuyht under the sale ALLUDED to
UnquestionabIy the title Of SmUIrz & CoorER,
which We have just recited. The Court was not
empowered to sell greatcr-thry could not buy n
greater. Did the City Council Of Augusta buy q
better one2 If they did, their redress is upon GAIA
WAY Il. LAMAR, who sold them ~ greater title than
he himself possessed; for he was the a!ience Of the
Bank Of the State Of Georgia, who bought the title
Of SIIuLTz & CoorER, and to whom the Bridge had
been rccllartcrcd by our Legislature, in 1880, for
fourteen years, upon the precise terms it had been
previously TO SmrLrz s. CcoPEn.
And again. ct us hear the City Council of Au-
gusts state the best tile they have ever been
raBvs t; an is.S-t sr'rcT
mind that this is tile brought by th, into Court
for it is an extract from their answer To Il Bill in
Equity, which had been filed BY the Trustees Of
SnuLTz against them and others, and drawn, it is
believed, by the lr;c able and accomplished RIcr-
ARD IIESRE WILDE, who, If we mistake not. acted
~ their Sniicitur that OCCASION and argued their
cause for them. The extract says:
So far as relates to the material structure now
existing, they hold it by the right Of having caused
it To be erected and having paid for ~
Can more feeble title he stated upon paper
How many men are there who have gone ntu Court
with precisely the same iillc-llavc been deprived
Of their prrp,ry-;nd laughed out of Tie building
1t is true that this title not ignored in this in
stance f"r as feeble it was it WIS valid against
SnuLrz and his Trustees: the Chancellor (tlc late
VIM lIArrERy deciding,
"That all the Complainant. SnuLTs', right and
interest therein had passed away By the expiration
Of his Charter. and the franchise exclusive prvi,
legc which constituted it his Property, no lungr
exists"
Precisely in the same manner have the right and
interest Of The City Council Of Augusta passed away
The Charter 10 the Eank Of the State If Georgia
under whom they claim, through GAzAwAr B. La
MAR. havn. expired in 1918. and the e1clusice
privilege uAich constituted it their property no
longer crists, but has been transferred tu others
They have lost it BY their own default in ncgectng
to apply for u re-chartcr If it be assumed, iha,
because party has the right to build bridge un.
der authority from The Legislature. and to hold the
same for limited number Of years, that therefore
he has IN exclusive property in the structure though
built upon the soil Of the State, then the singular
doctrine is advanced that the grant Of franchise
(Which is all that constitutes it his property for
limited period. is grant in pcrpc;uity The same
doctrine may also be advanced in respect to the right
To take tolls, to the exercise Of any other fran
ci:se. The effect Of such position is at once ap-
parent. For independent Of its asurd;ty, it would
place in the power vf single individual, the right
to usurp the sovereign authority. We therefore
doubt very much, the existence of so much audaci
ty, in the mind of reasonable being
But ag,in. The City Council Of Augusta have
been Invested Of their title to this property by their
own voluntary act. When they ypurcllased and took
posscssion under the Bank Of the State Of Georgia.
they formally and practically accepted the terms
under which that institution obtained this property,
viz that their chartered rights should exist but
fourteen years. The very acl under which they
took possession proclaimed the period Of its termi-
nation and they were, ipso tacto, at the arrival of
this period, divested Of their property. 1t is idle
to say, that the Legislature of 1913, was bound to
renyest them with the franchise, particularly in
the absence Of any application therefor. Every one
knows that u legislative body cannot bind its sue
ccssors For the Legislature which assembled in 80,