The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1868-11-05

following points, supporting them al by
J ldicial decisions, it being q mater which had
come up several times before the United
States Supreme Court and been thoroughly and
ably discussed in important cases: First, that
whatever right State might have to enter
upon private property and condemn it to public
usos, such entry and condemnation having
been once made, the right OF the State
was exhausted or suspended until the time lor
which such use was declared had expired.
Secondly. that the exclusive grant of land for
certain public purpose for certain time, was
transfer of the right of eminent domain,
quoad hoe, and that it had been expressly so
decided in this State in regard to the South
Carolina Railroad Company. That the only
case in which i. had been decided that iran
chise might be entered upon by the State
under Tie claim ofeminent domain, was case
of q turnpike seized ana condemned for free
public highway, and that the judgment in that
case limited it TO its peculiar circumstances;
and so with a case iii which railroad compa-
nv was allowed to run over land previously
granted to = canal company. The point on
which rested the contract MOI to allow second
corporation to infringe on the privileges
granted former corpol alton vas the grant OF
erc!,lsiue privileges, and this distinction was
recognized III all the cases. To make case
for the exercise OF the right of eminent do
main, it must be shown that the property to be
condemned is necessary to the public use for
which it is to be seiz ID. The Columbia and Au-
gustl Railroad Company could show 10 necessi-
ty for their invasion OF the rights of the South
Carolina Railroad; it WAS only convenient and
econonlnal. But supposing all these points. IN
Guiding the constitutlonality OF the act of 1868,
to be decided against the complalnants, still
under The act of 1863 the respondents, tor the
purpose OF conslru ting new highway, could
only condemn the land of complainants. "Pro-
vided, that in the construction OF such other
highwa: there be no hindranco to the use AMI
enjoyment OF the highway for which such
lands OF right ofway we're p -eviously lrocured."
The complanants showed 5y affdwits the in
Jury done BY respondents. and, therefore, the
latter could not come under tiis proyiso. And,
finally, granting cvca their right to enter and
condemn, they have, in the first instance, only
a right to enter and survey, aud the moment
they went a step further 10 dig, or do other
damage, before they had paid the con2ensa-
ton and obtained title under condemnation,
they became mere trcspasscrs, and as soon as
it was brought 10 the attention OF Il court of
equity, q writ of injunction would Issue.
General Conncr's argument was claboratc
and exhaustive, clear and logical from begin
ming to end showing not oaly familiarity
with ali the leading cases touching upon the
various questions at issue, but the ability to
analyze them and group their applicable points
together with wonderful effect. OF course
such an argument loses much Of its complete
ness and beauty in a mere abstract, but the
above sketch, mcagre as it is, will serve to
give some idea of this interesting case as
viewed from the standpoint of the South Caro-
lima Railroad Company.