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


law the opinion Of the Court of Blake
he the assertion to be conclusive then upon
such assertion the company upon any
g hope Of profitable would induce to
N the Insertion of right should be conclusive
there must be some trial 4S. AZ @ss zg n. 81
whole ease may it please the Court entirely
that proposition namely that party cannot By the mere
the manifestation the disposition to take dvest
vested right zs55z sE5E5#4
Now corporation has powers save those given by
tho charter by subsequent Whatever
tho Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company claim from
thers must be presumed in courthouse Claim ac
cording law We call upon them to show their authority
the right exists in fact, they must have the title Let them
produce the Act Of Legislature which empowers that
poraon TO condemn and take land Clearly the Of
the the here bascd
on charter brought under different Act altogether
There only concession this fact but have
conclusive proof TINT when they made application to Judge
Adric 1t Edgefeld asked for condemnation Of this
their charter and he refused the ground that
rot the rights they claimed no appeal was taken
the Sdptpne Court. 49,,
they we authorized 70 take this land why lad not Judge
Patt to decide to the contrary The question in
mind is ssere is Jurisdiction lodged go S. "a
to state facts which
object is to show that these parties have no title
Was charter The appaon to
Judge under the Act of 1868 Now said before
no appeal taken from Judge Adrichs opinion What fol
lowed ct No. AZ passed. and under this they
new proceedings abandoning all attempts to condemn
nder their charter On this basis the pending Issue
Let canine their present claim that under
the 1853 No ~ they condemn
gs and franchises exclusively vested In by Acts Of the
appropriate them to their It lis not
merely the Of condenng and dedicang to public
se that property but it is and
own which already dedicated
to public In other words the Legislature has taken
ert dedted to public use In the hands of and dedicated
ito the public the hands of Is exercise of
much higher than when under the law Of eminent do
main property Is condemned public This point
ness case which settled the right Of State by virtue of
eminent doain to condemn the franchise of and
vest another corporation but In the public refer
to 6 Howard ,, 53s West River Bridge u.s. Dix. s.
Judge Wilard-My mind is perhaps slow in grasping your
DO understand your argument to be that where
domain and endeavors to acquire that which vested
the charter the proper remedy is By prohibition
Mr.. altogether. Your Honors suggestion ap
plies to tho appropriateness of the remedy desire
establish f the Of the party and
rights violated to discover the proper reme
The proposition am urging Is that there great
authorizing corporation condemn
public use aud TO which is already ted
Gated the hands Of IN other words trans
ferfing tE6 rights Of one to the hands of another
received careful attention In the case of the
West Rivas uss Dix 8 Howard, 63S.
this bridge may transfer it to other nnder
the different charter This the State cannot do
awould bein effect taking the property from to convey
And to tho Same effect the decision Of Chief Justice Shaw in
Boston Water Power Company Boston and Worcester Rail
road Company 1American Railway Cases, ;p 326, sj
The authorities therefore the point that it extra
ordinary exercise Of the power Of eminent domain TO take that
whichis already appropriated to public use gs
1t unnecessary however In the line Of argument am pur
suing make any question the right State by virtue
power of eminent domain appropriate the property OF
corporation for the benefit of another We take stand
lower ground Coneeding for the sake Of the argument
the right the part Of the State to take that which, by
special grant, the property of person corporation and
in other person corporation our position that
the State in the present instance, has not done so that
by clear express manifestation Of her sovereign w has
she given to the Columbia and Augusta Railroad Com
pany the right say the South Carolina Railroad Company
that which was vested you by prior legislation Is nov
diyested and all former grants are repealed 3
great claimed by corporation the delegation of that
by the State ought not to rest on inference or implication
The parties lay their hand the line and chapter which
confers the authority Has that been done thus far
Previous the passage of the Act of 1863 the charter OF
every corporation provided the mode and by which lands
and the right of way be condemned But each charter
for itself and contained its conditions and regu
atons the consequence therefore, In many Instances
inconsistency The object the Act Of 1868 evidently to
substitute for ALL these conflicting provisions uniform and
general rule Of practice which should obtain throughout the
State and be applicable all OF its corporations The
preamble indicates its purpose namely An Act to declare Lac
by which tho lands the right OF way thss
persons corporations may be taken Ior the construction
of railways and other works OF internal improvement
unnecessary to cite authorities to show your donors the
preamble upon the body Of Act il OF doubtful
interpretation and here plainly set forth the single object
sought be accomplished The Act itself simply regulates the
practice IN carEg out this INTENT and there not section
which contains grant to any corporation past present or
future 1t is only when TO the eighth section that the
main object is tor moment abandoned and new clement
sought to be incorporated.
II alone that the argument Of the other side rest
they show clear right divest OF our property