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

~
ended by circumstances so extraordinary! Iflcrc
were any persons who abuvc all oihcrs were clear
| ly and individually undcsrrving Of such u boon, it
was, under the circumstances, the City Council ni
| Augusta. They failed in their petition. So did
Nlessrs. jones & KENNEDY in theirs The Lcgs-
aturc did not grant the prayer OF either.
Arother year elapsed The Session Of 1853 wns
come and JONES 6S KESNEpY again presented their
Memorial for IN amendment nf their Charter. The
City Council of Augusta were prroncrs no longer.
What the legislature in 1852 had refused to give,
| they had boldly takcn and strongly cntrcnehcd un-
der cover Of the Georgia Statute Of 1910, they had
in the interim continued /" appropriate thc franchise
Of tolls, in respect TO the Bridge, in rs ample nnn-
ncr as though they had received Charter from the
State, in the most absolute and exclusive tcrnls.--
What now, ask, did it become the Legislature of
South Carolina 10 dol The high and jealous spr,t
of Georgia, in respect to her territorial limits, nd
kponishrd them 10 BE- on their guard also. She had
! had a.eues,;on Of disputed boundary with Alabama,
us tn the Chanhoochc aud the whole Of that river,
along her border, had been atjudgcd to he within
| her territory. She is now contendng III t'c Su-
preme Court Of The U. S.. with the State Of Florida,
for Southern boundary, that rims almost within
cannon shot Of the Gulf Of Mexico. by the course
ofihe City Council Of Augusta, we ALEC were in
rpyed in a controversy with her in respect to our
Boundary OIL the Savannah. Were we /" remain
passive until unlawful possession had rpcncd into
right? For FIVE years the State had submitted to
the practical extension Orcr her errit r. OF law OF
| Georga--for five years to the usurpntlon by the
CITY Council Of Augusta, of her undnulcJ franchise.
We're we to suffer the ancient boundaries of her ter
fitory to be curtailcd aud the greatest Of her navl-
gable rivers at its most important point to be with
dawn from her jurisdiction The Legislature Of
South Carolina were constrained 10 act. They could
mt Say, there is controversy between certain par
ties, in Respect to this Bridge, AMI We will remain
neutral and do nothing TO do nothing was pre-
cisey what the City Council Of augusta desired -
They were practically in the Possession "f the States
| Enuchsc aud not To make an effective grant to the
Assignres cf SHuLTz l. NcKISNIE, was i'll effect tn
give % the City Council Of Augusta. There WAS, !
maintain, 10 other alternative. The Stale was coli
strained, rs matters stood, TO grant TO Que or the
other, for MT 10 grant to JOKES IL kENHEDY was 10
give 10 the City Council Of Au ustn. Ought she 10
have preferred the aittri Theywcrc, repeat, the
very last pcrsons to whom such grant ought to
have been nadr. Tlir State could hot have made it.
under the circumstances. without forgetting her own
sGIf-rcSprct. But more than this JONES & kESNEDY
were the only persons to whom The .Ctalc could
| Justly grant the franchise. They had succeeded to
all the rights Of SnrI.rz & AlcKrHSlE, under the
Act of 1919. Tha, Act conferred right to ihc
| franchise though cl"ggcd with condition as TO ;hc
enjoyment of the profits. VIII it be said that Vet
was in farm merely, but not in substance, grant
| If JONES s; kENNEDY before the l,te Act Of this
State had assigned to the City Council Of Augusta,
all their interest in the Charter, under the Act Of
1919, could not the City Council Of Augusta have
forthwith set up TolI-satc at the South Carolina
end oft,e Bridge, and proceeded to collect the tolls
prescribed by that Act? Nu one can deny it,
Then there was substance in the grant under the
Act Of lS49? The State had gone too far TO re-
cedc, ,and until IA years had elapsed from 18th De-
cembcr, l64S, she could not have transferred the
franchise to another, without violating her contract,
and revoking her own grant to SuuLTz & MckISNlE.
But our Act Of lS45 has been referred 10, which
provided that from and after the expiration of the
Charter to the Bank of rhe State Of Georgia, the
franchise, in respect TO the Bridge. should be- vested
in the South Carolina Rail Road Company, and that
that Company should make compensation TO the City
Council of Augusta Tor the portion Of the Bridge
within the territory Of this State The sole ob Get
of that Act was to give TO tho South Carolina Rail
Road Company strong pusiii"n in their ncg"tla-
tions, for the privilege Of crrssns the river and the
provision rs to compensation was undoubtedly
intended to render the Vet the less Objectionable 10
Augusta, who, it was known, claimed the Bridge,
under her Charter from Georgia.
The whole movement was 4 failure. The South
Carolina Rail Road Company unwilling t" incur The
displrasure Of Augusta formally rrrussd 10 accept
the grant, and the Act became nuiliy. have
first 10 remark that the claim for compensation re-
cosnzcd BY that Act, is wholly uniuuna"d :