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

C G Il II u m I G A T 10 M S.
FOR TIE ADVERTISER.

FOR TIE ADVERTISER.
"IEMORIAL IN RELATION TO TIE CHARTER
GRANTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF S. C. TO
MEssRS. JONES & KENNEDY, IN DEC 1883"
SUCH is the title Of u production which has re-
Gently appeared in pamphlet form, and also in the
columns Of the advertiser, under circumstances
which induce tn belief that its main object is to
influence the Senatorial election now pending in our
District. This conclusion is not unwarrantcd in
view Of the fact that the repeal Of the Charter in
question, is not seriously urged upon the attention Of
this document as 10 the power oi the Legislature to
repeal, but they do not appear to have been fol-
lowed with any serious argument in their support.
Indeed this would seem to have heen work Of su-
their very frank almiss.on that the Charter in
question is 70 ucStcI prizatc property !''Eor, to
nrle State to repeal itS own Grant, uncondtoiiay
and bcstow it upon another, is to do what no body
of lnem"ralists, we apprchend, lI:s ever had the
boldne>s to attempt 1t would seem, however, that
the author Of this mcmuri. has SOME vague and
indefinite noiion founded upon the law of . emil
nent domain," that Il State c!n resume her grants
at pleasure upon compcnsatinS the grantees there
for; and this high pcro.aiive lie would ask the
State Of South Carolina in this instance, 10 exercise
not for her own benefit or that Of her citizens, but
TO place money i'll the pocket of the City Council Of
augusta.
Before entering upon the argument, or attempting
reply to the positions assumed in this very anua
Cus document, we must be permitted To say, that We
have not the flintrst knowledge of the name Of its
author, The slightest acquaintance with the indi-
vidual mcmoraists, rs the copy before us is with
out single signature.
The author Of this memorial proposes, at the out
set to discuss the question in three aspects, and Tor
this purpose Lays down three distinct positions but
lie utterly fails aud breaks down with the frs, one,
leaving the others almust untouched. His first pu
ston is the only onc we propose at preset, regular
ly To notice. as the second has nothing whatever to
do with the question Of repeal and the third falls
to the ground Of ITSELF BY reason Of its own inherent
weakness.
"lsr. Whether the City Council Of augusta
are the ownerS Of said Bridge ?n
Now, in our opinion, the deed Of Judge EARLE
to SAMUEL HALE, upon which so much reliance is
placed in the menorial-and which, if we may be
allowed to judge by the space its author has devoted
to its discussion, is the only title the City Council
of Augusta have TO this rropcrty-has nothing what
ever to do with the question. For if it be construr,
as comforting perpetual Charter upon SAMUEL
I Ii,
teeth OF the Charter passed just seven days previous
TO its execution, investing them with the franchise
for fourteen years only; and is therefore inopsra-
tive and void. Besides, it is very manifest, both
from the tone Of his communication 10 the LcgiSa-
ture, which we shall quote directly, and the very
guarded terms which he employs in the decd itself,
That Judge EARLE intended 10 restrict his grant t,
lo', a1ater mark and to i conveyance of tho
a6atmcnt only. And a!an, Judge EARLE had no
authority to exercise any such prcrogatire as that
Of comforting perpetual franchise upon any one.
Ills authority was confined solely to a sale Of the
land upon which the abutmcnt Of the Bridge rested
If be regarded as conveying the whole Of the soil
to the centre Of the stream and the structure which
covered it, then such an assumption is totally un-
warranted Ly any mode Of construction applicable
to such instruments. That deed conveyed only
spot of ground extending to the margin Of the riuer
at l0'o 'oater mark to SAMUEL HALE, in trust that
it should be devoted, solely and exclusively, as
Bridge aJutment and public highray. And
Judge EARLE expressly refused to convey any
greater extent of land or upon any other conditions
than those expressed in the deed In his report to
the Legislature upon this subject, previous to the
execution Of the deed, he says:
Some misunderstanding however arose in the
progress Of the negocation in respect 10 the eTtcnt
of the cOnUcyaHcc and in relation TO the ground on
which the end of the Bridge and the abutmcnt arc
built which Mr. uALE seemed to have expected in
fee, and which declined conveying in that way,
because supposed the State might think it advisable
10 rctain some control 0rer the Bridge IN future"
Here we have the declaration of Judge EARLE,
backed by the deed ITSELF refusing to convey any
portion of the material structure the soil achich
ii corcrs, and the cogcnt and conclusive reason
given therefore, viz: the State thought it advisable
to retain some control Orcr the Bridge in future.
The deed in question was, most probably, the result
Of u compromise between the parties Judge EARLE
conscnting 10 convey the naked fee, but coupled
with the condition that it should be used solely and
exclusively as q Bridge abutmcnt and a high,cay;
thus enabling the State to retain some control over