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

But wo roitain from further commont; tho uuos-
ton now to be decided Is ono Of th,t class which
emphntcally belongs to tho courts to, adjudgo-it
is not 3 question OF privilege but of right. but
having noticed somo ronarks OF tho press, which,
perhaps unintontionally did injustice to tho md
tiSes of tho South Carolina Railroad Company, we
havo boon at somo pains to hayo prepared Tho
leading points in tho argument OF our distinguish
ed tornsman, General JAMES CoNsEn, which wo
appond. ,3g&.. riias-.r
AS Solicitor OF tho South Carolina Railroad Com
pany, ho has brought to tho Wow Of tho court, in
a very nbe manner, tho whole question at issue,
and We commend 1t to Tho careful peruHal Of our
readers, satsod that thoy will find, that in this
In all other trusts committed TO him, ho has dis.
charged his duty with marked ability
Tho South Carolina Railroad Company rs. Tho Colum.
bia and Augusta Railroad Company: PonrKn Cor.
skR for Gonplnnanss: AnTnun. MELTON MELTos,
for Dcfendents- .iEul
ARGUMENT OF, GENERAL CONNER.
Tho plcadings in tho Cause indicate the issued
submitted 10 tho Court for decision. O. ="
Tho essential allegations in tho bill OF Complaint
ante that tho action Of tho Defendants LIS dcsI
tructivo Of tho chartered rights OF tue Complain
ants and that tho ohartcr Of tho Derondants i'm
pairs tho obligation of tho contract previously
mudo betwoon the State nnd Complainants, and isl
therefore void. 81 it ~ s" - .,.
Tho rights Of tho Complainants arc derived
from and must depend upon tho terms Of their char
tor What that charter is viii hereafter be shown.
Tho question now to bo considered, is how that
| charter is TO be construed. ''''-'' 20 i.
1t is contendcd by tho Defendants that tho con-
struction shall DO most literally for the grantor
and most strictly against tho granteo and that tho
rules Of construction applicable to monopolies
shall apply. ,rafr.. r.s.iE ~ s:-ast .a.IM
All - : Z. .
fined TO bo !" an exclusive right granted to q few
Of something which was before OF common right. >
It cannot bo said u,at Tho right to construct Rail
Of this privilege to the Complanants, diveuted any
citizen of right previously enjoyed by him. Even
IN monopoly tho question is not between tho
nopoly and another, for both these corporations
| oxist by virtue OF the Same power.
| In cases OF Royal Grants, whore confessedly tho
construction was always most strict against tho
grantee, tho intent prevailed, and tho grant was
not limitod simply 70 what was specifically grant
joymcnt OF tho thing granted. [Whisters case,
| 10 Coke, G5 Sir John hfolin'a oaae, 6 Coke Tho
Church Wardons, Of st: Saviour, 10 Coke q Ba-
ta 10 Gofes a I tosa'vo s' ~ su''on h0sp'
| A distinction has also been drawn by eminent
| jurists, between Royal aud Legislative grants
and moro liberal ruIo Of construction applied to
But bo tho construction, strict or lIoral the car
the Legisiat,ro: Tho sebsfter is the contract be-
tween tho State and tho corporation; and liko any
other sontraet - is s to he construed I 70 as9emplish
different provisions liberal and iair construction
will Eiyon to the words either singly in oonnec-
Bridge caso II Peters, 400; Boulton us. Bull, Q
Hcnfy R9pkstono. 400; Dnghampton Bridge
snif mi Gfsss stfsas Of tho Piopaants saso dan
of 6. J. Tancy, in tho CHARLES River bridge esso,
as it s shS Leading as on this branch
the Pofeqdants it may bo we'll to ascertain exactly
wat Int that ease YES. !, a,:alrN s 4 e; ~, >. q
rcn Bridge Company MctS riyal aioas, each
town. ne gLprloa: RiseE lbridso az! tha elder,
endoaVored to enjoiR the Warren Bridge Com
The charter Of, the. Charles. biver Bridge Poni
tanned no grant Of exclusive privileges III Pe}era,
the expressed intention OF tho fsgsIature, ri
It Ea1 not nooas ;nd q
ne court divided. Tho case was tWioo argued
and finally decided by q majority Of one. Had
exclusive privileges could bsye been inferred, It Is
manifest that tho court would have unanimously
granted tho injunction
and that every grant OF power b, tho complainants
was accompanied with nn expfess grant Of e4elg-
rho original design OF the Legislature ns e1.
pressed in tho not OF 1897, Incorporating the Canal
and Railroad Company, was for !" the construction
from tho city Of Charleston on tho most praoticsbe
routes to each Of the towns OF Columbia, Camden
and and HHmbuIg." This was modified by tho act Of
to aamburs WITH s brsSohes ereof q to eon%
bia and qamdSn." Tho eet Of 1923 did not pro-
ton to Columbia and Camdon On tho contrary,
iit authorized them, but tho preference evidently
was for o main stem and branches, and after Civ
ing to tho corporation tho right to construct such
4 arf- fhok
b Vested aR e Rs4S seSR
BY virtnre Of this act, che connection Of CoIum-
bia and Hamburg BY Railroad, was authorized.
npsdf Ant 4oa HsSSSss Ks.
Colum bia."i The "branoh" hecsssarily connected ID
SSsspo to e1a 5s
BY the act, without connecting Columbia and Ham
burg, and all tho railroads authofized by tic act
To show this still moro clearly lot us refer to tho
act Of 1883, entitled an aot concerning tho South
Carolina Canal -nsl Railroad Company. p the presm1
benefit tho South Carolina Canal aid ftIs IssSIrosd
Company hnTe constructed under their charter, o
Raii,ond nom Gharcston 70 HsmRhrg and may
tliat all lands ,nnappropriated within o16 milb OF
the centro Of tho main tract of tho said road and
it's branches, bo vested In tho said Company. 80
This aoa gives no powers or authority, but it
recognizes the right Of the Company to construct
branches, and donale6 land for that pufpose.
10 ascertain what branches it rsfsrs 70, wd mt}Ht
turn to tho chnrtor and the only; branches thoro
| mentioned are branches to Columbia and Camden,
aud over every foot OF track authorized by that
act, the exclusive privilege extends. g,i,.r.,r J
"a 10 nrgue otherwise, is to place the Legislature
in tho posiion OF granting TO the Company the ex-
elnaiye right to make keep up and employ such
Railroads, and yet at the Same time reserying to
itself tho right to grant tho same privileges to
another. d .,s. It an . 7lt,,s -. = 80
No point is indicated at which tho branch is to
| diyerge from the main stem that iB left to the
| Company. II might hive branched. at Aiken
i or few miles from Hamburg. Suppose this had
| been dono and tho branch continued thenoe TO
Columbia and on to Camden woud not such road
hare been clearly within tho power given by tho
act, and would not tho right to mako, keep mp,
and employ such roads havo been vested oxclu-
siyely in tho Company The charter Is too, cloar
and explicit In tta terms to Justify adonbt lis 81
Now, suppose this to have been done, and tho
| road built, and Columbia and Hamburg thus con-
nected, aud the year efter it's completion tho Log
islature had charted Railroad from Columbia TO
Augusta Company now contemplate, would not tho
latter charter hnye been set aside as violating the
prior, as impairing the obligation OF tho contract
made between tho State and tho Canal and Railroad
| Company 30 long as thei Dartmouth. College,
case standg as law, tho answer nnst be In the
Affirmative and why and how would such char.
ter impair the obligation Of the previous contract
Because the road constructed under Il would con-.
meet places already connected by railrosd, the
exclusive right TO make, koop up, and employ,
which wss vested in the Canal and Railroad Com
pany.
:. It would be something more than violation OF