The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1869-03-25
THE SOUTH CAROLINA RAIL
ROAD.

As the questions at issue between
the South Carolina Railroad Company
have been very generally misunderstood,
the South Carolina Railroad Company,
with view to the full and proper pre-
sentatiun of both sides of the contro-
versy; retained skilful steuographer
to attend the session of the Supreme
Court in Columbia, at the argument of
the prohibition case, in which all the
issues between the two companies were
by the nature of the proceeding,
brought up by the dlcisiOn of the court.
The arguments of the counsel for the
South Carolina Railroad Company, and
those of the Columbia and Augusta
Railroad Company, are alike presented
to our readers iu the supplement we is
sue to-day:
Without entering into any comment
airy upon the merits of the many qucs,
tions raised in the argument, two points
appear to US worthy of consideration.
Ist. That the South Carolina Rail
road Company do not contest the right
of the Columbia and Augusta Railroad
Company to construct their road, bu,
simply their right to construct it upon
the land Of tue South Carolina Railroad
Company.
I'd. That the question of right be,
tween the two companies has never re.
ceivcd judicial determination.
That the Columbia and Augusta Rail
road Company have appropriated to their
use, lands which belong to the South
Carolina Railroad Company is undoubt,
ed, for it is not denied. Their right to
do so is the main issue, and upon that
the Courts have hitherto been curiously
silent. So far as the companies them
selves are concerned, the matters at is,
sue between them may be safely left to
guidance of the counsel "learncd in the
law" who represent the respective COM
panics. But outside of these compa,
nies and their interests, the question is
of grave importance to the community
at large. Can corporation take land,
build upon, and enjoy it without any
Legislative grant orjudicial decision au,
thorizing the appropriation 2?
1t would be a rcproach to the juris
prudence of any civilized country if the
rights of property rested upon tenure
so insecure. Iu whose favor the right
may ultimately be determined, the com
munity are not perhaps very deeply
interested, but that the right should be
determined, that the principle be fully
and firmly established that the citizen
cannot be deprived ofhis property except
by due process of law, is of the highest
importance, and in that view we call at
tention to the present controversy, in
which, as the papers show, the South
Carolina Railroad Company has been
deprived Of its property, and is now de-
spoiled Of it, without any competent le,
gal authority having decided that the
Columbia and Augusta Railrold Com.
pany had the right to take it.
A reference to the arguments will
show that all the questions have been
most kecnly and zcalously discussed
1t is due, however, to the South Carroll
ma Railroad Company to say that they
cDdcavored to avoid the protracted lii
CATION by the proposition to refer all
the matter in dispute TO a board Of
arbitration, composed of three Nom.
bers from each road. Had this
proposition been accepted and carried
out in good faith by the Columbia and
Augusta Railroad, this lengthy and ex.
pensive litigation might have Lceu
avoided. 1t is not too late, We trust,
for wiser counsels 10 Influence the Co,
lumbia and Augusta Railroad Company,
and prompt speedy and equitable ad.
justmeut Of the dispute.