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

delivering the opinion Of the Court in the case OF bke
he the assertion to be conclusive then upon
such assertion the company might enter any anas w
hope of profitable speculation would induce it to take
IF the oompanys assertion Of should not be conclusive
there must be some trial
This whole case may please the Court entirely upon
that proposition namely that party cannot by the mere
erion the manifestation of the disposition to take
vested right. -..ss - .. 3ss.a i
Now corporation has powers those given to p
the original charter, by subsequent legislation haeyer
therefore it must be presumed in courthouse they claim &C
cordng law We call upon them to show their authority
the right exists in e hy must a ae m LS as
poraon condemn and take our land Clearly the grant OF
authority in the charter is the here based
charter but brought under different Act altogether
There is not only in this ct but have further
conclusive proof that when they made application 70 Judge
Adrich at Edgefed and asked tor o a tn
they bad not the rights they Claimed no appeal was ssn
| the Supreme Court
they were not authorized take this land why had not Judge
Patt right decide the contrary The question in my
mind s where is jurisdiction odged2
Mr. Conner-Your Honor only anticipates my argument
but applies Of facts which not now discussing
My present object to show that these parties have tue
their charter Judge Arch ruled The application
to Judge Adroh was charter The application to
Judge Patt under the Act of 1863 Now as said boor
appeal taken from Judge Adrichs opinion what Io
new proceedings abandoning all attempts to condemn the
property under charter On this basis the pending issue
rests
Let us examine their present claim It alleged that under
the statute of 1863 No A. they condemn the rights priv
ege and franchises exclusively vested in us by Acts OF tne
appropriate them to their use 1t Is not
merely the question of condemnng and dedcatng to public
that which private property but it is ana
to their of that which already dedicated
to public use In other words Legislature has taken
erty dedicated public the hands OF and dedicated
the public in the hands OF ls an exercise OF
much higher power than when under the law eminent 40
main private property condemned public use Ihs point
n elaborated great and pressed with great earnest
ne which settled the right of State by virtue
empent domain condemn the franchise OF corporation ana
vest not another corporation but in the public refer
to Howard, p. 5as, West River Bridge Us. Dix
Judge Ward-My mind is perhaps slow in grasplng your
DO understand your argument 10 be that where
corporation seeks condemn property under the eminent
domain and endeavors acquire that which not vested BY
the charter the proper remedy is by prohibition?
Mr. Cduner-Not altogether Your Honors suggestion ap-
plies to h appropriateness of the remedy What desire to
establish first the rights Of the party and secondly those
shs have been violated to discover proper remedy
The proposition urging s that there ls @ great
difference between condemnng prvae property paons use
public use and appropriatng that which already ded
Gated public The hands of or other Words trans
erring the rights Of one the hands OF another.
This question received careful attention the OF the
West River Bridge vs Dix; Howard, 53s.
argued says Justice MoLean that if tho State may
"tae this bridge may transfer it to other individuals under
tho different charter This the State cannot do IL
"would DO effect taking the property from 10 convey it TO
to effect the decision Of Chief Justice Shaw III
Water Power Company U.s. Boston and Rail
road Company, American Railway Gases, p 325
The authorities therefore, the that s an extra
ordinary of the of eminent domain to take that
which is already appropriated to public use
1t unnecessary however in the line OF argument am pur'
suing make question to the right OF State by Vtuo
of eminent domain appropriate the property
one corporation for the benefit of another We take stand
On lower ground Conoedng for the sake of the argument
even the the part the State to take that which, b
special grant, tho property Of person corporation and
vest other person corporation position that
the State the present instance, has rot done so that
by no manifestation OF her sovereign WILL has
she given to the Columbia and Augusta Railroad Com
pany the right say the South Caroua Railroad Company
that which vested in you by prior legislation is now
divested and all former grants are repealed
It be evident your Honors that when power 30
great claimed by oorporaton the delegation OF that power
6y the State ought inference or implication
The parties must lay upon line and chapter which
oonSers the authority Has that been done thus far
Previous to passage of the Act OF 1863 the charter o
evey corporation provided the mode and by which and
and the right way be condemned But each charter
was law for contained its conditions and
atons the consequence therefore, in many instances
inconsistency The object of the Act OF 1868 evidently IL
substitute for all these conflicting provisions uniform and
general Of practice which should obtain throughout The
State be applicable all Of its corporations The very
preamble indicates purpose namely "An Act to declare toe
manner by which tho the OF way ovor he lands
persons corporations may be akou or the construction
ana railways and other works OF internal Improvement
authorities to show your LIQUORS te
preamble upon the body OF an ACT IN case o doubtful
and here plainly set forth the single oDec
sought accomplished The Act itself simply regulates ne
practice carrying this ntent and there not seco
which contains grant corporation past present o.