The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-11-07
South Carolina Railroad VS.. Columbia
and Augusta Railrond.
ARGUMENTS OF D. T. ooRB1N, ESQ, AND HON. c.
O. MEMMINGER.

The hearing of the application for provis-
ional injunction in this case was continued be-
fore Justice Willard yesterday. The morning
was occupied by the arguments OF D. T. Cor
hin, Esq. for the conplainants. and Hon. e..
G. Memminger for the respondents.
Mr.. Corbin made the following points
l. AS to jurisdiction l. Being conferred by
express words, it was not to BE- disputed. 2.
Being given to justice Of the Supreme Court,
it extended over the whole State.
Q. AS to the rights of the complainants (: 1.
These rights were made exclusive by statute.
Q. They were franchise which might be talk
en- for public use, but could not be transfer
red to another. g. The charter was contract
which the State could not violate. 4. The
grant of exclusive rights in its very nature
forbade the idea of entry upon the privileges
by others, else the grant would contain in itself
the elements OF It's own destruction.
8. As to the rights OF the respondents: L.
They had a charter Of a general power to con-
struct road from Columbia to Augusta, but
this could not give them right to enter upon
and iniarc The franchise Of the complainants,
unless they showed physical impossiblity to
60 by any other route, and that was not pre-
tended @ Even i they had right to con-
demu the land of the complainants they had
not done so, and until they did, they were
trespasscrs.
4. AS to the remedy. intcrlocutory injunc-
ton would lie to secure statute privilege.
Hon. C. G.. Memminger closed the argument
for the respondents He objected strongly to
the assumption of jurisdiction in this matter
by Justice of the Supreme Court, both on
general principles OF law, and the express
words OF tho State Constitution and
the ACT Of the legislature. the object
of his argument on this point was
to show that the Justice could only
have control Of the case as matter Of chan
Gerry jurisdiction that such jurisdiction WAS
not conferred on him by statu.e, and that
even il it were it could not be oXo .c!scd by
him outside Of the county III which the bill
was fled, unless tlisre was sufficient cause
shown. Granting the jurisdiction. he claimed
it as settled liw that provisional WRIT oi III
junction would hot lie unless clear
right and imn ,diato danger OF ire
parable damage were both shown. On q
thorough examination Of the efIdcnce, he
could find none showing i.reparab!c and MI
mediate damage. He thought the case was
clear, aud tina: tho argument ought to stop
here; but still he followed up the argument or
the opposite counsel, and in so doing, elaine
that the privileges OF the South Carolina Rail-
road were not excils We, and that even If tlle!f
were, i! had been decided by the United States
Supreme Court that they were subject to the
exercise of the right OF c:nincnt domain, arG
that the injuries caused by such exercise coull
be compensated in damages; that tho right
to enter and use land oi otlors, Without any
preliminary proceedings, was secured BY the
charter Of the Columbia and Augusta Railroad,
and it had been so decided in this State; that
the matter was res jud,cata, and that the con-
duct of the two parties had been such as to
preclude the complainants rom obtaining q
provisional writ Of injunction.