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

I "a. .... v.Um eLyrnSc Iur II years, p'm;;r up
on land belonging to her as proprietor. and r con-
si,leraon Of their doing so, grants them the prvi-
lcgc, during that term. Of taking certain prescribed
tolls. They erect and keep up the Bridge, and re-
cciye the tolls, during the term OF th"r Charter
The Bridge is fixture AMI belongs 10 the State as
proprietor Of the SOIL and at the expiration Of their
| Charter they demand compensation for the struc-
tme The ans Ser is. they have received it already
The tolls that were granted them. was the price paid
! by the State Was it not enough? The one hall
The cost Of the Bridge was ga little UPWARDS Of
sixty-fivc hundred dolIars.' Willie the ore half Of
the tolls received during the ID years Of their Char
ter. were not less, it is believed, than two hundred
thousand dollars. Agan-by the very terms Of
| their Charter, they were to erect and keep up The
| Bridge at their own expense :" but If llc Stale
has To pay them for it. then the Bridge has been
built undoubtedly not at their expense, but hcrS.-
| The provision Of the Act Of lS45, rs to canrcn-
saol, it is clear, therefore, WAS drawn in ms"on-
cepton or disregard Of the actual rights OF the State
Nevertheless the State through that Act has spoken.
Let ner words stand fast. What then, ask. is the
equitable claim for compensation admitted by the
| Act referred to? The Act Of lSi5 contemplated
that Immediately after the expiration i'll lSIS. ot the
Charter to the Bank Of the State Of Georgia, under
whom the City Council Of AuguS:a claimed, the ).
Carolina Rail Road Company should pass in.o the
possession of the franchise in respect tc the Erldg,
and in that cuent-in that state Of things. ii rrc"g-
nized tho equitable claim OF the City Council nl Au-
gusta, lnr compensation as to the portion Of the
Bridge within the territory Of this State. The con-
ccssion by that Act of any equitable claim tC COM
prnsatnn, has this cxtcnt-an,l no more. Are the
! City Council Of Augusta, n0ln in the position III
which they stood, 1T the expiration Of their Charter
from this State, III December, 1918? Far removed
frnH it are they. For five years. without any col"r
of right under the law Of South Carolina, they have
appropriated the entire tolls for pssaGe across the
Bridgc-tos amounting in the aggregate, it is be-
lievrd not less than one hundred and thirty t"us-
and dollars to the one half of which the State Of >.
Carolina was undoubtly entitled. lM not this sut.
fcicnt compensation In their Answer to the Bill
exhibited against them by YAnnoRorGn, Trustee, in
1871, the City Council Of Augusta thus speak
"Thesc Defendants admit the original building Of
g the said Bridge and these Defendants can not be-
Ecve the same cost S73 500: since tho rebuilding
I" Of The same, during The prevalence of equally high
"pric"s, cost these Defendants but little np'oards
"of thirteen thousand dollars"
The account thea is thus to be stated. The one
half the cost Of tho Bridge would he some sixty five
hundred dollars, willie the one lafthc tolls received
since Dee. lS4S Ito SLY nothing of the SluOuh0
paid them BY the South Carolina Rail Road COM
pany in great part rs consideration for loss oi III
turc tol) would amount TO some sixty five thousand
dollars II the State Of S. Carolina had cxhibtcdh her
bill of complaint against them in the Court Of Chan
Gerry for account Of the tolls and they had had NIL
the advantage Of being purchasers in possession with
out notice Of her legal title. whit is the utermost
they could have climcdl What more chan this I" set
off the value f one half The structure of the Bridge,
against the amount Of unauthorized tolls they had
received. What ground Of co.,. .p!a;nt then have
they when they hive received already tcn-fold the
compensation that would be awarded them in
Court Of equity and good conscience And that
compensation they have received TO all practical in
tents and purposes. The State iorbcars to reclaim
the unauthorized tolls they have appropriated, and
the Assignces of ST. ITz t McNINNIE are, under
their Charter empn rcd to collect only the small
and reduced tolls hereafter TO accrue. The claim
Of the City Council OF Augusta, for equitable COM
pensatioh n0,o, maintain therefore, is utterly aud
essentially different from the claim recognized by
the Act Of lSd5. No recognition ofsuch claim is
contained in the Act of the last Session of the .c-
gisturc, because it was believed TO have been origin
ally without foundation in justice or law-bccnusc it
was regarded, TO all practical purposes, as amply
satisfied and paid-and because il such equity in
their favor ever subssed, has been efectualy re-
PEELED and demolished BY other and opposing equi-
ties on the part Of the State.
! Tho franchise or right to take toll for passage
across a bridge. is separate and distinct thing
from the bridge itself. It docs not belong TO the
owner Of the bridge or Of the land, upon whiuh
the bridge is erected, by virtue Of his legal property