The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1869-01-29

may male Improvements pern M so with his eyes
against him he loses the whole We understand that We do not
that # ' It u ws s all we y Se
pended the land Yet take that risk If the Judges
make road in defiance Of law what the use nw2 IF M
Johnston chooses and build his line the lands of
he acted without warrant of law he take the consequences
has Seen nnd one wh We rive G'"' "
proceed to show that lonors have nothing do
in the end The Judgment of the Court by law not
by invention or eonv"noe not by short cuts You" IIono will
th bench new system jurisprudence has been established and
bcooves you to lay the foundation securely and avoid creating
cccdcns that may work ncalcuab mischief Because
some newly invented WI writ % ace M % his oed nc v , ore am "n r
to acccde that request permit process which not clearly
authorized by the constitution and the law which your guide The
dent of my early experience my Office with
the complaint that had with of his negroes and
asked where he The reply he did know; but he
down in Georgia have that called dgus
the moment you put into the clerks office there is not
whom refers who will not quiet walk into JAIL deliver himself
and beg ior Gods sake 10 surrender everything that wanted
strikes me that it is something like dy"s which is required
ios-s that the made by the plaintiffs this Court could
not act by prohibitions secondly, that they pre-
case and thirdly that if such preliminary trial be had the Columbia
and Augusta Railroad Company have right condemn the land
Now the two last propositions consider of
Lime would be wasted upon such an argument and shall therefore
question your onors are to decide On the case made by this pa
can you of prohibition? perceive that
the judicial department Referring article four of that
will be found that the judicial power this State
Supreme Court and two Circuit Courts namely Court of
Pleas having civil jurisdiction and Court of General Sessions with
see "! %@ n G % h. c% ss am" in % sss5 S ." , e
appellate jurisdiction only chanccy shall
the General Assembly may by law prescribe rorn the said
Court shall always have power to writs of injunction non
dial may necessary give general supervisory control
over all other Courts in tho State"
will ,no
as follows sThe Courts of Common P hl h 1; (r &
all civil and which shall conizabc
may be provided BY They power to issue
wrs of .andan", prohibition e f,ci1s and all other
perceive therefore that the power to issue this writ
is not given to the Supreme Court but the Circuit you
quoted that d Court shall always have power
junction m""m"s qno "o"ra" h"bas corpus and such other
original and remedial he
supervisory control over all other Courts in the State
inG 5 pnm pr pos r is that l if the Writ of prohibition @ % hsons to the
the constitution it is denied to the Supreme Court 1t is exclusive
originally; although You power such
|s as may be necessary to general supervisory control other
The second proposition submit before uis-
must be further legislation The act to organize the supreme
Court distinct upon this subject for it declares that each Of the
justices OF the Supreme Cour shall have power
issue wr of Injunction, mnnrn"s q1o naryono 1os r,p~s
and other E remedial % wrs according to the principles and
hereby declared " be Of force far applicable and not non
The Legislature thccrc, have directed cannot
assume that under the constitution prohibition necessary
keep supervisory control
queny that may be issued without further legislation the most
imp important % proposition is that his writ of prohibition necessary
and does not come within the description Of this ic of the
now may please your onoN necessity shown
put think the absence Of necessity concsvey
When you demonstrate that things gone "A certain
manner without the nterpatn of certain thing hundreds
OF years. you prove that that latter thing all necessary
dey counsel on the other side find an Appeal
court writ of prohibition originated
hmg Edward the Consor down time no case can BE- found
IN which writ of prohibition has issued this Court 1t ALWAYS
issued from the Court below further There States in this
oho where the power to issue was expressly this
the laws OF Massachusetts the power the Supreme Court Of n
State to issue wrs of prohibition m inferior Courts for the further
alcc OF justice but case Mr. Nahm Dane in his Treatise
on the law is ecocced in which this power has ever been cxer-
cscd' He adds C. Danes American ,36 y And mt ono
case Is at present found in which prohibition has issued in any of
the United States that Pennsylvania case much con J
In that this issued the District Curt Tl c,n
was libel for tnagcs account Of capture vessel as prize
by ellgeren power which vessel alleged to be neutral
American property the vessel having zen a uyruIir or
r " place of safety belonging to the c,ptors"
Your lono also doubtless ENGLAND writ
issued for Lord Coke during of controversy with .
Courts OF Admiralty claimed such
Courts OF common law Jurisdictions He only claimed exercise this