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

proceed to consider whether the recent Act of her
Legislature in respect 10 it, can be justified upon
grounds Of public expediency. To -apprehend this
question Alright other matters, not spoken of 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 the Sessions of the South Carolina Leg
isature in the years 1913 and 1919, SnuLTz prayed
that the Bridge BE- re-ciartered and vested in him.
The Legislature inclined favorable car to his me-
lloria but was presented under unpropitious cir
curnstances: II was already known that Augustc
claimed the franchise of tolls in respect to the whole
I}rdee:undcr her Charter from Georgia. An i'm
ncnse trade was passing across that Bridge between
the Suulh Carolina and Georgia Rail Roads, and
the Legislature were unwilling 10 burthen it with
any additional tolls. 1t was also suggested that
suit in the Federal Court between SnULTz and
Augusta, was then pending in respect to the Bridge
(abuut the merits of which the Legislature knew
nothinr) and that to grant Charter to him, uncof-
ditionillv, might perchance, do some prejudice
10 the other party. The result was, that at the
Session of 1915 the Legislature granted to SnCLTz
g. klcKINaIE, are-chartcr Of the Bridge, for the
term of Ia 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
rerrcd to, should be determined against the City
Council Of Augusta. BY the Act of lS49, this re-
striction was repealed, but another substituted Sto
the effect that the collecting of the tolls prescribed
should not subject the community to the payment Of
double toll. In Oct 1851 SHuLTz died, aud JONES
& KEyyEDY became his administrators. In his
life time, SuurTz had bargaincd with AlckIsNIE for
his interest in the Bridge Charter, but had not paid
the purchase money At The Session Of 1852, JONES
& KENNEDY presented their memorial. setting FORTH
among other things, that when slruLTz was a poor
bankrupt, and Ills credit gone, they, out OF their
own not abundant means, had advanced to him
moneys to large amount, whereby lac chiefly sub
sisted, during the latter years Of his life and that
as the only recunprnsc lie could make he had con-
yevcd to. them NIL his interest in the Bridge Char
ter. under the Act Of 1919. They further set forth,
that after SHULrzs death, bel ewing that something
else than mere mockcry was intended by that Act,
,hcy had paid with their otcn funds, to AlckISNIE,
some sixteen hundred dollars, The purchase money OF
his interest in the Bridge Charter, and had received
n decd conveying the same to thcm-whcrcby they
had succeeded to all the rights of both STuLTz and
MclINSIE under that Act, and they prayed that the
Charter conferred thereby, be so amended rs to
allow them to collect the tolls it prescribed Their
application undoubtedly was no, without force. But
there were other considerations whrh.ilnposcd upon
the Legislature The imperative duty 10 intcrpose in
their behalf The people Of Augusta have spoken
out with singular plainncss Of speech. They will
not be offended if speak frankly Also While
disclam all diSrcspcct towards that community, I
insist upon the largest liberty Of defence.
1t will be remembered thatin January 1910, the
City Council Of Augusta had dacqurcd through La
MAR all the interest Of the Bank Of the State Of
Georgia in the Bridge and the franchise respecting
it. On the 23d Dec 1910, the Legislature of Geor-
cia cnactcd-" That The said City Council of Au-
. gr,sta shall hcncetorth have all the powers,
thority and privileges vested by law in the late
owners Of said Bridges, and shall henceforth
"have the exclusive privilege, Of building and keep
Sing up Bridges across the Savannah River. ut Au-
" cnsta, within the corporate limits of said City
" which are crtcndcd on the North oucr said Rirer,
" to the boundary line between this State aud the
" State of South Carolina" AS far back as 1871, E,
the City Council of Augusta, in their answer to the
bill exhibited against them by YARnonouGn, Trus-
tee, had said, These Defendants deny that one
g half Of the said Bridge is situate in the State Of
South Carolina On the contrary, they insist that
'.thc bed uf the River, far rs low water mark
.'the South Carolina side, is within the jurisdiction
g Of the State Of Georgia." The language Of the
Act of Georgia OF 1910; is most significant: il as
serted almost in terms the jurisdiction of that State
over the whole River. The City Council Of Angus
Ia so construed i,-and they acted upon that con-
struction.
SnuLTz & McKISSrE. after obtaining Charter
from this State, for q years, as have stated, re-
ccvcd also Charter from the State of Georgia, in
1914 for 20 years. and with the like rates Of toll.
So also, the Bank of the State of Georgia. after
ceving from this State renewal Of the f"'"- ~