The Fairfield herald. [volume] (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1849-1876, 1867-06-05

Augusta, they must SO exercise IN.
hight as not to Violate III. r;l,, ~ ,,l
crs.
Sic uit,rc tuo anplics nol mor.,v -
injuries by property, but includes iuinrir,
to rights. (JclIrirs as. Williams : Mv,
chcqucr 597
1t canno. be denied tina. the rich, te
make, keep up and cnplov y railroad
from Charleston to Uamburn il rxc,u-
svc in the South Carolina Railroad
Company.
No matter whence they derived i,
they have it. re exclusive roll. n,-
tachc5 to every G,ot Of the track, ON
crwisc, this follows: that although nl.
mi,trdl the State copld no. charter 9
road from 4 to G., she miuh, charter :,
road from A to b, aud from b 10 G, and
do indirectly what she could not do
directly. The conclusion demonstrates
thc (ailacv Of The REASONING.
No matter how short tho distance n
parallel and competing road lravcrscs. to
that extent 1t DESTROYS the exclusive
privilege.
The distance simply measures The
qutniun of DAMAGE.
The State could not grant a charter
for road from Grccnvlllc to HAMBURG
Can the Columbia and Augusta Com
pnny, without any authority unJc,
iheir charter do that which the STATE
conld not give them power to do /?
Under their charter their powcr is
simply to construct road from Colum.
hla to Augusta. There is no authority
given to'thom to construct ihcirroad piu
Gyrn;tcviIc, and they defect from tho
proper route in so doing. They can ex-
rrclIc Their full chartered rights without
infringing the rights OF others. They
dcvjntc to infringe.
T"c direct route may be more costly
at the outset Experience has shown
that III The end the most direct is the
most economical route. But the nucs-
ton Of greater or less cost cannot enter
INTO the li$culSson IL was Il matter to
be CON ilvrcl before initiating the work.
There was no Obligation ,,pon tho com
pany to build the road, but there is all
obligation not TO violate tho rights Of
otirrs.
In the leading case Of tho Charles
River Bridge and tho War; II Bridge
Nl pctors) both CORPORATIONS were
chartered for the same purpose with
tho samc privileges, aud by the same
authority. No exclusive privileges
were granted TO the first corporation,
and til" question was whether the State,
by the first grant OF power had SO dives.
ted h'rseIfof her sovereignty quoad
thai subject matter as to deprive her Of
'Iir power Of granting cqnaiprivilc,grs 10
another.
IN that case there was no conclusive
privileges here there are. There The
contest was between tho conflicting
charters mere ,ho contest Is between a
corporation WIN charter authorizing
'h' fo"u rom N'ranlIovillc TO Hamburg
'"'" company having no authority
- cons ''"cc u ROAD from Hral'i'cv'!'c to
ll'''"'''S, 0c'"eoh ch"r'er"" a tres
russ any, 'n' c1"l'''o' law doctrine ap-
! nc" " WIN rs '"'l Iopce' |" n'acNStohc,s $
T""''I''''''' ,I''1 'oS' ~ arc U.s. ford
,,,'"'''',',, r,'., ,,,' 'ci'Im~y' "S' n,o'u,
,"'', M M''''o' ~ " -, 'n'SSoe ,, 80 nc
r,'''s' ,'s'.o'' ''"l%'t' W; " ! ,;,"' %
,r",n,,,,' i' ~ r. NS"e'' m;u 1o''' ~ oV'
~, "%,n" c,aL. ~, ~. Mc . m',.'', % ''',,' w.
80 90 wv" ~ NV " Me-
'' /
II 'Ne No'"mn,H nm" Augusta Compa'
Wy cp"'a not oU',a 'ho road from Gran
revue 70 hamburg with n charter
""'nor'"'"S IT /'"I'F', they cannot
q" II "''no"' s"ch authority.
!" "'''S'o' 'y 'hc "'lenaan'*' that
'a'''cr may DC thc rights OF the com
''a;nan'S' 'h'y nave oec'' iosI ny lachcs
""" ''P"' '' ''h''
70 lar as the projected road from
Gran!tev'l lle to Hamburg is concerned,
lne objection may ho at once disposed
OF. That road, 50 lar as wc arc in'orm.
ca, Is not yet definitely located--ccrta!n
y no work has been dono upon it, and
we are amcnab'c TO The charge of un-
Scrmly haste rather than to TINT Of
lachcs. Nor Is there any much better
foundation Tor tho charge Of achcs with