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

...... the rlgut, ana as that is
conferred not otherwise than by their Charter il re.
suits that the title set up by the City Council them
sclres, is necessarily subcc to the limitation of that
Charter. lft be designed as the deduction Of q
title in fee, i is ncomprchensible and meaningless
and ncllig Mt mon must marvel that for property
now alleged TO be indisputaJiy theirs, the City
Council of Augusta were then utterly unable to sug-
gcst title, save feeble and rickct,y that it
breaks down in its very statement
Their rebuilding the Bridge in 1910, it is clear,
could give them right TO it beyond the il years
of their Charter They claimed under the Charter
To the Bank Of the State Of Georgia. which iu terms
provided that any accident should happen to the
said Bridge hereafter so rs to render it impaSs;l-
bic, and they fal 10 repair the some within two
years from the time Of such accident happening,
" then The Charter hereby granted should b. void
When the Bridge WIS carried away by the flood of
lS4O, they bound therefore, TO rebuild it, 1t
was part Of the bargain between them and the
Stac-a Part Of the very price they were to pay for
| the Charter.
Had there existed any prctcncc Of claim on their
| part to the so upon which the Bridge is built it
could not have escaped the eye Of the able Solicitor
who drew their answer. MIR. llAYNE, the Attorney
General Of this State, in his able Rcp"r to the Legs
ature at the Session Of 1852, upon the subject Of
the Augusta Bridge and the navigation Of the Sd
vannah river comes to the conclusion that the soil
''upon which stands the Bridge, except the aJu,-
mcnt, which is 4 highway, is unqucstonably the
property Of South Carolina" Surely these coll
sidcratons sufficient to justify the Legislature
in regarding the portion of the Bridge within the
| territory of this State her property. But much
more than all this adduccd to establish her title.
The Judgment Of the Court in the referred
to is direct TO that very point. To understand its
bearing and effect it should be borne in mind that
the suit was brought in ls4l, by YARBunouGH, as
Trustee Of SlrLrz, against the Bank Of the State Of
Of Georgia, G.. b. LAMAR and the City Council of
Augusta. The bill alleged that in 1921, SllULrz
had been unlawfully elected from the possession Of
the Bridge, and claiming that the Bridge was then,
Of right, the property of SnuLrz prayed that it be
sold and account Of the tolls ordered for the bcnc-
! fiji Of his creditors.
Chancellor HARPER, IAN il!ustrious name y heard
the cause on the Circuit and in his Decree, after
discussing various questions that arose. proceeds to
consider the claim oI SHuLTz, (suppusine it to have
been unlmpa:rcd by any release, sale, or act Of
his,) to the structure Of the Bridge, ROW that his
Charter had expired; and thus he disposes Of it !:
Then as to any right Of the Complanants in the
Bridge itself, it would be sufficient to say that all
Z" tho Complainant SmULTzs right and interest
therein had passed away by the expiration Of his
Charter. The franchise or exclusive privilege
"HiCH u PioPStl1, ioheSE CAiStS,
and the material structure is attached 10 and
part of the soil, and trould be the propcrty Of
"thc States, the oUncrs Of that soil, if the fran
" chiSe had not been renctoc& TO another"
Nothing could be more cxp!icit-itis is Judgment
of the Court full and direct upon the very question
we are considering The claim OF SnuLrz, as con-
sidercd by the Chancellor, and rejected by his De-
cree is the very claim now set up by the City Couu-
ell of Augusta Both claims arose under a Charter
expressed in the same furm Of words for thu Char
ter to the Bank of.thc State Of Georgia. unlc- which
tile City Council Of Augusta claims, is but renewal
of the Charter granted originally TO SHULTz--and if
his claim 10 the structure of the Bridge ended with
the one Charter their claim undoubtedly expired with
the other. 1t results therefore, that the material
structure Of the Bridge from tho centre Of the river
to its termination on the Northern bank belongs to
the State Of South Carolna--that in respect to any
interest in the same vested in the City Council of
Augusta, they were the mere tenants of this State
under her Charter to the Bank of the State Of Gcor
gia-and that upon the expiration af that Charter,
on the 18th Dec. lS4S, the ST. tc had perfect legal
right to dispose Of that portion Of the Bridge as she
| thought fit.
will not enter into argument to provo that the
central line or thread of the Savannah is the true
boundary between the States of Georgia and South
Carolina. / assumeit to be so. It is scarce regard
ed as an open question on this side therver. The
State then was the lawful owner Of the portion of
! the material Bridge within her territory-and now