Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1854-02-15
FOR TIE ADVERTISER.


the Augusta Bridge, no ordinary degree of excite
ment has been created, not only the other side Of
the river, but also amongst large and respectable
portion of our own citizens whose interest has been
seriously affected by such extraordinary legislation.
And, as perceive by the Advertiser the 25tll
ultimo, that our Honorable Senator has deemed it
necessary that he should appear before the public,
IN an article of considerable length, in vindeation Of
his course upon the subject; and as felt compelled,
by high sense Of duty, to oppose an Act which re-
garded as unwise, incxpedient and uncaed for, it is
but Just to myself we'll as due to my constituents,
that should state the facts and give the reasons
which governed me upon that occasion. In so do
ing, shall notice some of the arguments of our
Senator, who cndeavors to prove that by the strict
law, the one-half of the Augusta Bridge reverted to
the State, at the expiration of the Charter granted
to the City Council of Augusta, by this State
While will not presume to argue the legal question,
as am not lawyer am satisfied to learn from the
argument of the Senator, that while the law did not
exact and require grant to Mdssrs. JONES & kEN-
SEDY, there were, in my view, many considerations
of justice and good policy against it. Our own
Courts have always respected the title of the City
Council of Augusta to their Bridge; for in every
case that has arisen between them and the other
parties claiming the Bridge, our Courts, as well as
the Supreme Court of the United States, have inva
riably decided in favor of the City Council of Angus
t and it will be seen that the Legislature of South
Carolina has heretofore regarded the whole Bridge
as belonging to that Corporation hence in the Act
Of ls45, granting the Charter to the South Carolina
Rail Road Company, it is provided, that that Com
pany should make compensation to the City Council
of Augusta for that portion of the Bridge within the
Jurisdiction of this State.
Again: in lS4S, Charter was granted to SnULrz
& mckenzie, in the event that the suit then pend
ing should be decided against the City Council of
Augusta, but the title Of the City Council was sus-
e.ned by the decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, and, consequently, snULrz 65 Nc
kIxxIEs Charter fell to the ground. In lS49, it
was enacted that SnuLTz g. McKlSNrE should be
authorized to take tolls from all persons passing over
the Bridge from South Carolina to Georgia, propided
such collecting of tolls did not subject the commune
ty and the Rail Road Company to double tolls
Now, it will be perceived that in every one Of these
Acts provsos are inserted by which the rights Of the
CITY Council are respected and the interests of the
public arc protected Col. CARROLL admits that the
Charter granted to the Rail Road Company was
only intended to strengthen that Company in their
negotiation with the City Council Of Augusta; but
it seems that such legislation only tended to weaken
the position of the Company. For in 1910, the City
Council paid one hundred thousand dollars for the
Bridge. and soon after offered it to the RAJ; Road
Company for the same sum, which they refused to
give; and thus matters stood until lS45 when the
Legislature, as already stated, granted the Charter
to the Rail Road Company as cocrcive, but unsuc-
ccssfu measure. Nor were these negotiations fair
y entertained until the right Of the City Council
had been tested and implicitly recognized by deci-
sion of our own Court enjoning Mcssrs. JOKES &
KENNEDY from collecting toll-but leaving the tolls
to be collected by the City Council exclusively, where
it was thought the matter had ended.
All the former difficulties having been removed
by this decision Of the Court, in the action Of the r.
Road Company who had brought the suit, the City
Council soon manifested disposition to make an
arrangement with that Company, by which their
purposes might be accomplished. Accordingly an
agreement was entered intc, to the effect, that the
Rail Road Company, by paying to the City Council
of Augusta 100000, were.to have the privilege of
crossing the river upon Bridge to be erected BY
themselves. have not alluded to these facts for
the purpose of defending the City Council of Angus
ia, but to dsabusc the public mind, and remove as
far as possible those prejudees which, in my view,
are unjusy excited against neighboring City: and
more particularly to show that all these efforts upon
the part of our Legislature to fghtcn. or to force
that City into terms, have proved unavailing, and
have recoiled upon our own citizens.
Much has been said about the grasping rapacity Of
the City of Augusta; aud the price the Rail Road
Company had to pay for crossing the river, is often
adduccd as evidence against her. Now, ftllat Com
pany refused the liberal offer which was made to
them by the City Council of Augusta, shortly after
they purchased the Bridge, it was certainly their
own fault, for then they had an opportunity Of pur
chasing the Bridge for 100000, the sum which
they eventually had to pay merely for the privilege
of building Bridge upon which to cross-and that
the City Council of Augusta were thus exacting,
may justly be attributed to the unwise action Of the
Legislature of South Carolina, which induced them
to believe that the State was endeavorng to drive
them into measures and yet this same Rail Road
Company have expressed themselves as perfectly
satisfied with the hard bargain which it is said they
had to drivc And here state fact which is high
ly creditable to the City of Augusta she has two
excellent Free Schools, within whose walls about
twenty poor children, who reside in Hamburg have
been receiving instruction for several years, free of
all charges So much for the rapacty and ilberali-
ty of the City of Augusta.
But, let us admit, for the sake of breviy that the
one half of the material structure of the Bridge, and
the soil upon which it rests belong TO this State and
even then contend that it was unwise, inexpedicnt
and impolitc, on the part of the Legislature, to
grant the franchise TO two individuals for their sole
bcnf, to the great dctriment Of the public generally.
Believing as do, that it is the duty Of the Legisla-
tor to protect the rights and interests Of his const
tucnls, as far as lie may be enabled, and believing
as did, that such grant would CONFER in its practi-
cal operation, upon Messrs JONES & KENNEDY
private benefit, at the sacrifice of the public good,
felt constrained to oppose their application, not
my regard and esteem for them as in
dividuals.
at the Session of 1852, when presented the
Memorial of Messrs. JONES s. KENNEDY, praying an
amendment of their Charter to the Augusta Bridge,