The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-03-17

,uI
hndrance the and enjoyment by OF Their
Gown highway within intent and meaning OF the Act aore
said No And if sEch ground OF objection be maoe 70
e taken then and in such the of the petition
must denied provided and by section eight of the Act
aforesaid"
Nav it please your Honors does this clearly indicate that
there was no other before Judge Pat than that OF
hndrance? When the question came before MN
The Chief JuceThe Court does not desire to hear on
further that point J"go Ptts opinion will speak 1or
ITSELF 3 o.;.o
that really matters of debate We before this Court on
motion for prohibition and first thing have to do to
show your Hono if have any doubt on the uoec1 na
the power to order prohibition is in this Court
In Section article of the Constitution OF South caro-
ina is The Supreme Court shall nave
Court for the Of errors at law under
"such regulations the General Assembly may Dy law pre-
scrbe Poded the said Court shall always have power 10
usue wrts of injunction pandauS quo warano ha6eas cor
ps and such other original and remedial wrts as may oe
"ecessay to gus a. general supervisory co@o 00e as
It is true the term prohbition is not here to be found but
as that and remedial in its character clearly
within the scope of tribunal the power to use it IS as
clearly granted that clause of the constitution as 1t had
been expressly mentioned. - .
In the case le State Hopkins, Dudley L. H. lO1 1T
was held that subordinate tribunals exercise judicial
wer and the question of jurisdiction that ground tor
prohibition they the construction of statute
for unless there was controlling sub
ordinate Jurisdictions is probable and know from
renee that there would be no uniformity in decisions
Judge Wlarda that case of an assumption OF urls
thing turns on that The difficulty in showing where an
officer his right and fails to exercise
the whole of the jurisdiction
cited it said whether the right appeal existed OF
whether the reators avaed themselves OF or not II the
subject matter under their step was
cora uce Your Honors will that IN the hfteenth
section of the article of the constitution the
yery different relation to the power to issue wts OF proh
hilton and other remedial and writs from that which
is used in the fourth section just quoted Ihey eerrng TO
the Circuit Judges shall have to issue writs OF man
daus prohibition aca and all other writs which may
be necessary for carrying their powers 1uy nto erect
Their powers the power of each Court not that general
supervision which the constitution intended to give this tr
buna but special power limited to the jurisdiction belong
ing to each Circuit Court in South Carolina.
The learned counsel who opened the argument yesterday in
behalf of Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company sad
that your Honors could proceed under this fourth sechon
that legislation necessary He forgot that by the very
terms Of the constitution this Court the exercise of this
mower is set above and beyond the Legislature the State
and the Legislature wise affect that grant OF
It is constitutional prerogatve of this Court and belongs
to it as much as the King does to the King himself
Nor is there analogy between the to the Su
preme Court of the States the power given to this
Court under the constitution of this State regard TO this
matter The judicial power of the Supreme Court of the
United States exercised under an Act OF ana is
in prohibition by that Act declared to extend to the DIS
rct Courts proceeding Courts of Admiralty and Maritime
jurisdiction and these confer and limit the
power the constitution OF this State the power
to this Court and and pc
troll over ali other Courts in the State Whatever there
FORE may be the Court it is made subject to the su
gyen is conferred the authority of the Legislature but
by the constitution the organic law of the State submit
that the power the Court ample and its exercise nee
essary if make out to which prohibition
ought to apply.
IF then the power of this Court cear the case made
out for it's exercise equally 1t is the record before the
Court presents the plain proposition that Judge Pa has
msconstrued ohe Legislature No a. That he has mis-
construed regard his under that Act in regard
to the subjects properly embraced that Act and regard to
the protection which he bound give the legal rights OF
parties before could proceed condemn and make them
forfeit to any corporation who would make claim to
them And the proposition contend for is that when
person OF corporation before Judge Pa sitting in Chambers
privilege granted other express
the authority of the Legislature OF the State and the
person or corporation holding and enjoying such preeXsng
franchise privilege denies that the Legislature intended to
dyes such franchise privilege and shows that in tho charter
of the person corporation claiming there express
words to support the claim evidence to sustain mp
cation before Judge Pa by order to compensation
can thus initiate proceedings condemn and forfeit such
existing franchise privilege there must be preliminary
trial and decision the Of the Legislature vos
its eexistng grant franchise privilege and to
the same the person corporation making claim hercto
We say denied that what sought be taken
from the South Carolina RAILROAD has been granted to it, by the
authority of the State ITSELF That the State has
pressed purpose what so granted and vest
the same in the Couba and Augusta Railroad Company
And that before Judge P thus dves the South Carolina
Railroad Company of it's legal he must be that the
Legislature so intended the decision Of that question
of intent preliminary to his condemnation
thereof must be had And that Judge Plat has power
under the constitution and laws Of this State to decide that
question his Chambers still less has he to proceed to
le1.