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


time terms was the result Of accident. Not SOFT
was the fruit Of deliberate and enlightened consider
alton. Mr. EARLE in his report to the Legislature,
at the Session of 1880, of his actings nresPect to
that matter thus speaks: awe also contracted TO
".sell to Mr. SAMUEL HALE, who is President oi tho
Branch Bank of the State Of Georgia. in. Augusta,
t" some unimproved lots and ground near the end
oc the Augusta Bridge, on the South Carolina side.
Some misunderstanding, however, arose in the
progress Of the negotiation in respect to the eTtcnt
4" Of The -conueyaRce, and in relation TO the ground
on ,ohich the end Of the Bridge and the aLumcRt
are built, which Mr.. HALE seemed 10 have ezpcc
/" ted in fee, and which declined conveying in that
sway, because supposed the State might think it
tadvisable to retain some control orer the Bridge
I" in future. The sale to him, therefore. was not
perfected, but have authority from him to make
an olltr to the Legislature, which will be more par
"ticularly explained to your Committee, and which
Ct shall recommend to be accepted"
What the precise offer was that Mr.. HALE had
authorized to be made do not directly know, but
it appears sufficiently by the result. This much is
certain-that the special Committee, 10 whom the
matter was referred, recommended that MIR. EARLE
be authorized "to make the proposed sale 10 SAMUEL
HALE of Augusta ~ which was concurred i'll by both
Houses-and that within seven days a!tel wards
EARLE executed to HALE the Deed of 24tl Decem-
Der, lC0U, alrcaQy tudt iliati u
ment be read By the light Of the surrounding cir
cumstances The South Carolina Rail Road was
about to be completed. An immense commerce,
it was oresecI, would flow into the State across that
Bridge The State was the owner Of the land upon
which stood the structure of the Bridge, and its
abutmcnt within her territory. She had just re.
chartered the Bridge and vested il in the Bank of
the Stale of Gcorg ia corporation under the law
ofano,her State, and wholly beyond her jursd ction
and control 4 measure, to say the least, Of most
question die policy. And now, it was proposed to
Sell to that Corporation, Cor though in form the sale
was to HALE, it WAS well understood 10 be- for the
use of the Bank) certain lots of land, including the
spot on whi,h rested the abutmrnt Of the Bridge
1.-THE sale should be made. it was at the least, but
common prudence to retain the Bridge after the cS
pirition OF the Charter to the Bank, solely aiA ab
suuely within the control Of the State, uncnlbarass
cd by any rights Claims springing out of the
ownership of the soil, by that Corporation. For
vino could or-sce that at the expiration Of that Char
ter, the interests Of the State might not demand i'm
pcra,ivcy, tha, the Brdgr.swiih the franchise, he
vested in another grantee. The learned and able
LAWYER who represented the State in that transac-
ton, took care that she sustained no detrinlcnt
What means the passage Of his report referred 10?
What else than this, that the rcry'qurstun We arc
now considering. arose in the negotiation with Mr.
HALE. lne one desired INC conveyance l" tAte'NI
to the centre of the rvcr and be in fec whilst the
other proposed to convey only TO low water mark,
and as to the soil covered by the abutmcn, 10 con-
vry the same to the Bank only during The term Of
It's Charter from the State. Thus stood the parties
w.en the Legislature assembled. But the Session
intervencd, and the Bank had obtained renewal
of the Bridge Charter, IFS chief object doubtless in
negotiating for The purchase Of the land. And now
the parties met upon middle ground HALE consent
cd to receive conveyance limited to low water
mark, and EARLE 10 convey the soil covered by the
Bridge abutment in fee, but with the stipulation that
the same should be used, held and enjoyed solely
and exclusively for Bridge abu,mcnt and high
way. The legal effect Of this stipulation can moi be
mistaken. For whose benefit was it? Not the
grantees asSuredly. 1t did not enlarge his rights
On the contrary it rcsctci them. 1t was in sub
stance reservation b. the S,a;e-nay, more than
tha,, it was formal dedication Of the parcel of
ground" conveyed to be the States hghway--to b.
an abutmcnt for her Sridgc-tu be hid anl held not
merely subject TO such public easements, but mpOH
the trust that it should be devoted TO such purposes
and uses, solely and cxclisvely.' The City
Council Of Augusta tits believed, have never claimed
any interest in the soil upon which the Bridge is
built. They were party defendant in the case Of
Marlborough trustee, and others, US. The Bank Of
the State of Georgia and others, in the Court Of
Equity of this State In their answer in that cause
their right 10 the Bridge ITSELF as distinguished from
the franchise in respect to it, if intended 10 b.
serted as being in fec, is placed upon most curious
ground, for they maintain in their own words that
so far rcates to the material structure now OK
isting, they hold it by the right Of having caused