The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-05-20

"
either event, it was their road, governed by hev
charter which is the old charter Of tho Louisville
and Cincinnati Company, the iSth Seotlon 1l:.e OF
which provides that the State OF South Carohns
shall not for thirty-six years, authorize the con-
struction of any railroad within twenty miles of the
railroad SO to be constructed by the Cincinnati
and Charleston Railroad Company, which shall
connect any points and places on their rallroad or
which shall run in the, general arecslon tnereoi.
piled only to the road from Columbia to CINCINNATI,
aud that at that Time it was the intention OF the
Legislature so to restrict it.
But in 1B42 the project of the Louisville and
Cincinnati Railroad was finally abandoned.
By the act pf1843, the Legislature extended tho
charter of the Louisville and Cincinnati Company,
over all the road possessed by the South Caroline
Railroad Company, that is over the Charleston ana
Hamburg track md the Branchyille track They
made it all their road governed by their charter.
What warrant is there for saying that one sec
ton Of that charter is repealed or modlled.
That the Legislature extending the cnarter oyer
all the road and property OF the South Carolina
Railroad Company excepted the 18th Seetion?, :.
The charter is the charter for the whole road; II
must apply to al or none. If to ail, then the ae-
PENDANTS cOncede our entire case. II 10 none, tlen
they expunge section OF the act and ask the lN
Court to: do what the Legislature Declined to do
If they seek amiddlo course and attempt to limit
or restrict the opel alton OF the 18th sect9n tney
must show that the Louisville and Cincmnatl Com-
pany ever had the right to build the road from
Columbia to Branchville under their clartor; that
the 18th section applied to that part of the road
and that the Legislature, in the act OF 1913, limited
it to that part of the road; and they can show
neither.
That it was the intention Of the Legislature to
grant the most full and exclusive privileges is ap
parent, not only from ell tho Legislation touchlng
the road, but from the circumstances existing at
the time-the magnitude OF the enterprise-the
deep interest felt BY oil classes Of the community
in its success-the pecuniary liability OF the State
as holder of its stock and endorser OF It's bonds
The company had barely survived the severe
financial trials Of 81. 1t Is hardly propaDie tnat M
success of the road, would, ut the moment OF It's
completion, and when it's resources were about to
commence havo limited or restricted any OF the e3-
elusive privileges, upon the maintenance oi Mnlcn
| its success depended. A road, whose object was
to divert traffic from the South Carolina Railroad
Company, would then have met with but little
favor. The Legislature was prepared 70 grant al
most anything that would render the enterprise
| omy of management they placed the entire enter
prise under one charter, and extended that charter
over the whole road without the limitation or re-
striction of single exclusive privilege.
! It may have been mistake. Inc Legislature
NAV not have acted with sufficient sagacity and
prudence. But the question is not what they
ought to have done, but what they have done. The
Court is to construe contracts not 10 make them.
Experience may prove that the contract a, was m
made by competent authority; and binding on the
parties nor can the people or their representatives
BY any act theirs afterwards impair its obligation.
[Ohio Life Insurance Company Us. De Bottle
Howard, 428.
The exclusive privileges of the South Carolina
Railroad Compsny are Yosted in 1t by charter, md
that charter cannot be repealed altered or amended
by the Legislature unloss the power to 40 80 IS rc-
served i'll the original grant. lOarsnouth Conege
Case-4 WheatonI Binghampton Eridgo Case-3
Wallace, 73
We havo now shown
That the exclusive right to ''nlake, keep W, and
om9oy railroad from Charleston n to as aa%Da nassS
in the Canal and Railroad Company.
That tile Louisville and Cinclllnall Railroad CON-
pany never did have any charter right to construct
! q road from Branchvile to Columbia.
| That before they even located thor road they
purchased tho charter rights and privileges Of tho
Canal and Railroad Company,
That under those charter rights:alono could the
road legally bo built.
pany being owners Of the road from Charleston to
Hamburg and Of oil the charter privileges OF the
Canal aud Railroad Company, alono had the rlgnt
to build the branch to Columbia.
That tho Legislature in lS43 mergod inc Ganai ii
and Railroad Company in the South Carolina Rail-
road Company; extended the charter OF the Louis,
| yillc and Cincinnati Company over the entire road
of the South Clrolina Railroad Company and add,
ed to it the exclusive privileges OF The Canal anu
That That the % eighteenth section Of tho charter OF
tho South Carolina Railroad Company forbiGs tho
construction for thrty-six years OF any road con-
Meeting places on their road.
That tho privilege added to their charter by the
Act of 164S is the exclusive right to make, keep
up and employ railroad from Charleston to Ham,
burg, and q branch thereof to Columbia, and
| thus ,
That whether tho exclusive right OF the South
Carolina Railroad Company is referred to the one
charter or the other, it is equally given under
/ either.
! Be the argument well or ill-founded, concedo
TINT the Legislature had the right to charter the
| Columbia and Augusta Road, that 1t does not inn
sstiIl recurs, have not the Columbia and Augusta
Company 90 acted under their charter as to violate
the rights Of the South .Carolina Railroad Com
pany?, ~. ,.,,,u ,,, ,,,,st bo oon-
struea subject to existing laws; must be consist
ent with, and not in antagonism to- existing rights
otherwise PRIOR tl tenlpore R0ttor n 5uye,,. -
Conoede that they have the Charter flgat 10
so exercise the right as not to violate the rights
Sic ,tsre t,to applies not merely to injuries to
propery but includes injuries to rights. lJcttries
| Us. Williams, Exchequer 597.
| up and employ railroad from Charleston to Ham,
burg is exclusive in the sopth Carollna hailroad
| Company.
Il
track, Otherwise, this follows: that although ad-
mittedly tho State could not charter road ttom
| A to G, she might charter road from to d, and
from B to @, and do indirectly what she could not
do directly. The conclusion demonstrates the
| fallacy OF the reasoning,
No matter how short the distance parallal and
competing road traverseB, to that extent it de-
stroys the exclusive privilege.
The distance simply measures the quant'n OF
damage.
The State could not grant charter for road
| from Graniteyille to Hamburg.
Can the Columbia aud Augusta Company, with
out any authority under their charter, DO that
which the State could not give them power to do
| Under their charter their power is simply to
! construct road from Columbia to Augusta. There
| is no authority given to them to construct their
road ua Granteyils there is no necessity for them
to go uio GranteYille, and they defect from their
full chartered rights without Infringing the rights
of others. They deyiate to infringe.
The direct route may be more costly at the outset.
Experience has shown that in the end the most di-
! rect il the most economical route Butt the ques-
tion Of greater or less cost cannot enter into the
discussion. 1t was matter to DO considered be-
! fore initiating the work. There was no obligation
upon the company to build the road, but there is
an obligation not to violate the rights OF others.
| In the leading case of the Charles River Bridge
and the Warren Bridge III Petcrs) both corpora
Hons were chartered for the same purpose with the
same privileged, and by the same authority. No e1-
elusive privileges were granted to the first corpo-
ration, and the question was. whether the State.
by the first grant OF power, had 80 diyested herself
Of hor sovereignty quoad that subject matter as to
deprive her Of the power Of granting equal privi-
leges to another.
In that case there wero 10 exclusive privileges;
here there are. There the contest was between
the conflicting charters; hero the contest is bo-
| tween corporation with charter authorizing the
road from Graniteville to Hamburg and company
having 10 authority to construct road from
Granitovillo to Hamburg, between charter and
plies with its full force [3 Blackstone's Commen-
taries, 2l9. Yard Us. Ford Saunders, III; Huzzy,
us Fleld 2 Cromptor, NIillson & Roscoe. 1872 Tho
Islngton Market, Cl. g. Finn, 5l3; Gibbons cs.
Ogdon, John Ch., $50; Turnpike Co., os. Miller,
John Ch. Ill; Stark os. MCGOWAN, Mott q
Me-, 1871