The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1869-02-27

(which answer it is alleged among other things that the
taking of their lands and rgh of way prayed io ii DC
hindranco the and enjoyment by respondents OF te
Gown highway within intent and meaning OF the Act aiore
asad No 42 And if such ground OF objection be nAdo 70
appea by and sufficient evidence produced as true ana
swell taken then and such the prayer OF the peton
amust denied provided and by section eight OF he c
Nav it please your Ionos does this clearly indicate that
there was no other matter before Judge Pat than that OF
hindrance? When the question before him
further on that point Judge Patts opinion VIII speak LOT
Mr. MagrathI come then to the consideration OF questions
that are really matters debate We before this Court on
motion for prohibition and the first thing have to DO to
show your Honor you have any doubt the subject that
the power order prohibition in TINS court co.,
In Section 4Article of the Constitution OF South caro-
na it is thus declared "The Supreme Court shall have
"appeate jurisdiction only in of chancery and shall
Court for the correction OF errors at law under
usucb regulations as General Assembly by law pre-
scrbe ocdcd said Court shall always have power to
aissue W of INJUNCTION andamu quo carranto habeas cor
and such other original and remedial writs may be
anecessary to give it general supervisory co"o' o0a o 00
Courts in the State
as that is writ original and remedial in its character clearly
within the scope of this tribunal the power to use 1t Is as
clearly granted in that clause OF the constitution as IL hao
been expressly mentioned. . 49, :.
In the case of the State Hopkins Dudleys L. r. 107
was held that "when subordinate tribunals exercise uda
and err on the question rsdcon that ground tor
prohibition and they err on the construction OF
for unless there controlling power over sub
ordinate Jurisdictions it probable and we know from eAPe
rence that there would be no uniformity in decisions
sudge Wilard-Was that of assumption OF Jur
dcon not or error of powers Every
bin6 turns on that The difficulty in showing where
officer the extent Of his right and fails to exercise
the whole of the jurisdiction
cited whether the right of appeal existed or not or
whether the REALTORS avaed themselves of or not if the
subject matter under their cognzance every step was
c0rSm NON % Your Honor will observe that in the fifteenth
section of the article of the constitution the language
very different relation to the power to issue writs poh
bton and other remedial and original ws from that which
is used the fourth section quoted "They eterrng to
the Circuit Judges shall have to issue wrts OF man
damus prohibition ca and all other writs which
be necessary for carrying their powers fully into effect
Their powers the power OF each Court not that general
buna but special power limited to the jurisdiction belong
ing to each Circuit Court in South Carolina -
The learned who opened the argument yesterday in
behalf the Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company said
Hono could not under this fourth section
that legislation He forgot that by the very
power above and beyond the Legislature OF the State
and the Legislature in no wise affect that grant power
1t is constitutional preroaYe OF TINS EGur ana Pel0ng
Nor analogy between the given to the Su
preme Court the United States and the power given to this
Court under the constitution Of this State in regard to this
matter The judicial power Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States exercised under Act Of Congress- and is
in prohibition by that Act declared to extend to the Dis
Jurisdiction and these words at confer and limit the
power But by the constitution of this State the power is
to give hat is this Court general supervisory con-
troll over ali other Courts the State Whatever there
peryisory control of this Court And the power largely
Given is conferred by the authority of the Legislature but
by the constitution the organic law OF the State submit
that the power of the Court ample and its exercise nee
essary the make out is to which prohibition
ought TO apply
IF then the power this Court clear the made
ont for it's exercise equally 1t in the record before the
Ipesents the plain proposition that Judge fa has
miseonstrued the Act No A. That he has mis-
construed regard to his powers under that Act in regard
to the subjects properly embraced that Act and regard to
the protection he bound give to the legal rights OF
parties before he could proceed to condemn and make them
forfeit person corporation who would make claim to
them And the proposition We contend Tor IS that when
person or corporation before Judge Pat sitting in Chambers
asks his ode condemn to its use an existing franchise or
privilege granted other person or corporation IN express
terms authority of the Legislature Of the State and the
person corporation holding and enjoying such preexstng
franchise privilege denies that the Legislature intended to
dvest such franchise privilege and shows that in the charter
the person corporation claiming there express
support the eam evidence to sustain any mp-
aton before Judge Pa by order to compensation
thus initiate proceedings condemn and forfeit such pro-
existing franchise privilege there must be preliminary
rial and decision the the Legislature divet
preexsng grant such franchise privilege and to vest
the same the pesonor corporation making claim thereto
We say and is denied that what sought to be taken
from the South Carolina Railroad has been granted to by the
authority of the State itself That the State has
pressed purpose what has granted and vest
the same in Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company.
And that before Judge Pa thus dvest the South Carolina
Legislature That for the decision of that question
of intent trial and decision preliminary TO bis condemnation
thereof be had And that Judge Patt has no power
under the constitution and laws of this State to decide that
question Chambers still less has he power proceed to
condemn while he refuses to hear and decide and yet in his