The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-11-06
South Carolina Railroad Company VS..
Columbia and Augusta Railroad Com
pauy.
ARGUMENT IF C. D. MELTON, ESQ.

The hearing OF an application for an interio-
cutory Injunction in this case vas continued
before Justice Willard yesterday. The entire
morning was occupied Iy the argument OF c.
D. Melton, Esq, counsel for the respondents.
Mr.. Melton made the following points, and
supported them by argument and by frequent
referenc. - to the text books and reports:
[. The jurisdiction Was disputed on two
grounds FIRST, that the jurisdiction vested in
Justices of the Appeal Courts b: the act OF
1868 is appellate only. Second, that even l:
the jurisdiction we're original, it could not be
exercised out OF the district in winch the
bill was filed.
9. That the writ Of provisional injunction
could not issue unless the com claimants could
show boh that they hal q clear, legal and
equitable title, all tia: l.ia:- were about to
suffer rreparab'e i;.jury.
8. Tina: their title was 10: clear because the
following points hal been a!feldv decided in
previous silt in equity: L. That the Columbia
and Augusta Railroad Company had right TO
connect these cities by railroad. 2. That they
had right 10 construct road from Granite
vile to Hamburg. parallel to the South Caro-
lima Railroad, and within its right OF way. ..
That they had general righ. to encfoach upon
the right OF way of the South Carolina Rail
road for the purposes OF their charter.
l.. Tha. tn. charter o. the Columbia aud
Augusta Rliiroad Company empowered them
TO construc: their road on the 'most practi-
cable route" All o. 10 other, 50 tint they had
no right 10 leave t..;, !aI,i. All 'A' South Caro-
liua Railroad Company ami sez, those on
another route less practica5la.
5. 5.Onthe constitution ality OF their charter: l..
That an act of the Legislature should not be
presumed unconstitutional, but, on hearing
in subordinata jurisdiction, should be treat
ed rs constitutional, although it might seem
to the JUICE to be otherwise. 2. That the
Slate had never parted with her light O..
eminent domain over the lanis OF the South
Carolina Eli!road. 8. That the title OF the
South Clrol:na k,ilroad Company to the lands
was no. exclusive, the words OF exclusion in the
charter OF that company extending only to the
right to build AMI keep up the iailroad. i.
That, although as to proprietary grants,
the eller S.nlls fuicl, tue is'eiee "ao siio Sa'o
with grants which were exercises OF the right
of eminent domain. 5. That the right of the
South Carolina Railroad Company was not only
not exclusive, but WAS expressly limited to
their necessities and use.
G. That the injury was not irreparable: l..
Because granting the charter OF the Columbia
and Augusta Railroad Company to be valid, it
expressly provided that these injuries should
be compensated in damages. 2. On examina-
ton of the evidence there was no showing Of
irrcparable ard immediate damage.
Z. Tha: the act OF 1868 protected only pri-
vate property and the right OF the South Caro-
lima Railroad company, alleged to be invaded,
could in no sense be called o private right, but
was undoubtedly public right.
8. That the conduct of the South Carolina
Railroad Company, in throwing vexatious him
ORANGES in the way Of the Columbia and Au-
gusta Railroad in their efforts to build their
road, their refusal of q compromise, and their
delay Of a suit of law by technical objections,
was such as to preclude thom from asking the
iuterposltion of court of equity.