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

proceed to consider whether the recent Act of hel
Legislature in respect TO it, can be justified upon
grounds Of public expedieney. To -apprchend thi:
lqucstion a.ght other matters, not spoken of as yet
must now be referred to.
On the 18th Dec. lS4s, the Bridge Charter from
this State TO the Bank Of the State Of Georgia ex-
pred At tho Sessions of the South Carolina Leg.
isature in the years 1913 and 1919, SmULrz prayed
that the Bridge be re-chartered aud vested in him
The Legislature inclined favorable eur TO his me.
uiorial but it was presented under unpropuus cir.
cumstances. il was already known that Aueustr
claimed the franchise Of tolls in respect to the whole
I}rdgc:undcr her Charter from Georgia An i'm.
nIcnse trade was passing across that Bridge between
the South Carolina and Georgia Rail Roads, and
the Legislature were unwilling TO burhen it with
any additional tolls. 1T was also suggested that
suit in the Federal Court between SuuLTz and
Augusta, was then pending in respect to the Bridge
(about the merits of which The Legislature knew
nothng) and that to grant Charter TO him, uncon-
ditionally, might perchance, do some prejudice
TO The other party. The result was, that at the
Session of 1915 the Legislature granted TO SnULTz
s. McKINsIE, are-chartcr Of the Bridge, for the
term of ii years, with rates Of toll greatly re-
duccd, but subject to the proviso that they should
not be allowed to collect those tolls until the suit re.
ferrcd to- should be determined against the City
| Council of Augusta. BY the Act OF lS49, this re:
sricton was repealed, but another substituted Etc
the effect that the collecting of the tolls prescribed
should not subject the community to the payment o
double toll. In Oct. lS5li SHuLTz died, and JoNRf
s. KEXYEDY became his Administrators In his
life time, SIIurTz had bargancd with NlcKISNIg for
his interest in the Bridge Charter but had not pad
the purchase money At The Session of 1852, JoNEt
& KESSEpY presented their memorial, setting forth
among other things, that when SnurTz was a poo,
bankrupt, aud his credit gone, they, out OF their
own not abundant means, had advanced to him
moneys to 4 large amount, whereby he chiefly sub
ss;c during the latter years of his life, and thai
AS the only reconprnSc he could make he had con.
veyed 10 them al his interest in the Bridge Char.
ter. under the Act Of 1919 They further bet forth
that after SHULrzs death, bel ewing that something
else than mere nockcry was intended by that Act
they had paid with their o,on funds, to McKIXSIE
some sixteen hundred dollars, The purchase money o
his interest in the Bridge Charter, and had received
| deed conveying the saneto hcm,.-whercby they
had succeeded to all the rights of both SnuLrz and
McklNSIE under that Act and they prayed that the
Charter conferred thereby, be so amended MS I'd
allow them to collect the tolls it prescribed Their
application undoubtedly was not without force. Blu,
there were other considerations which imposed upon
the Legislature the imperative duty to interpose in
their behalf. The people of Augusta have spukcn
out with singular piainncss Of speech They will
no, be offended if speak frankly also. Willie
discaim all diSrcspcct towards that community,
insist upon the largest liberty Of defence.
1t will be remembered thatin January 1870 the
City Council Of Augusta had acquired through La
MAR, a the interest Of the Bank Of the State Of
Georgia in the Bridge and the franchise respecting
it. On the Odd Dec 1910, the Legislature of Geor-
gia cnactcd-" That the said City Council of Au-
" gl,sta shall henccforth have all the powers, au-
thority and privileges vested by law, in the late
+" owncrs Of said Bridges, and shall hencefurtll
have the exclusive privilege, of building and keep
ting up Bridges across tho Savannah River. at Au-
e. glSta within the corporate limits Of said City
"which are extended on the North oucr said Rirer,
" to the boundary line between this State aud the
" State of South Carolina" AS far back as 1911
the City Council Of Augusta in their answer to The
bill exhibited against them by YARBonoUGn, Trns-
tee, had said, 4" These Defendants deny that one
I" half Of the said Bridge is situate in the State OF
" South Carolina On the contrary, they insist that
"thc bed Of the River as far as low water mark on
=: the South Carolina side, is within the jurisdiction
" Of the State Of Georgia" The language of the
Act Of Georgia Of 1910; s most significant: it as
serted almost in terms the jurisdiction of that State
over the whole River. The City Council Of Angus
ta so construed it-and they acted upon that con-
struction.
SnuLTz & NclIrNNIE after obtaining Charter
from this State, for q years, as have stated, re-
ccivrd also Charter from the State of Georgia, in
1914, for 90 years, and with the like rates Of toll
So also, the Bank of the State of Georgia, after re-
ceving from this State renewal Of the ic"r'~- ~