The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-03-17
I'M THE SUPREME COURT.
Columbia S. c., January 29, 1869
ARGUMENT OF HONORABLE C. G. MEMNGER, COUNSEL FOR
RESPONDENTS.

make no such controversy which they describe We do
mot claim land shall right inch OF until
the preliminary question which they refer has been decided by the
Court So that the whole cmor raised here and elsewhere can with
very brief statement be shown be utterly unfounded
Now what the question nved 1t not whether we can
railroad to Augusta road parallel with that of the South
Carolina Railroad Grneve Hamburg their land
just permitted do the lands of others No that which
has aroused feelings such extent this matter the
edge that about deprive that corporation OF large amount OF
Hence longer this agitation be kept alive the longer
will they make profit of five or ten Thousand do
month they ose will not be due to the fact that we nave
nav portion Of their trade will lost and this may please
your Honors gauaen of the 1t will deprive them OF
that tax which for x years they have imposed upon every man
who obliged travel their road Augusta but at the same
time gives country another link that great chain OF railroads
which untes New York with New Orleans and traveller
an abstraction from purse of toll seventy miles Of the South
Carolina Railroad that this controversy has been kept
up have been fought it to the death in yan
therefore for them say they have fastened this matter to concu
On the 1h of April 1867 the South Carolina Railroad Company
bill this Court which they set forth the invasion OF their
rights by the Columbia Augusta Railroad Company and among
other things they follows That the charter the said Columbia
Hamburg Railroad Company the obligation the contract
the State and orators and that the rights powers
and privileges granted said charter are inconsistent wth
"o daon Of the rights and privileges vested your
by virtue of the Acts OF the General Assembly
referred That the projected track OF the SAID
mb and Augusta Railroad connects points and places already
the road Of and the track OF
orators and runs for distance weny thirty mie
the general direction of the road of orators and on Land
granted your for way and competing road
To that bill the defendants Sled admitting that they were
about land that granted to them as right OF
The Court will observe that this of the very points
being argued what the udgment 1t refreshing to read
such clear of judicial opinion The Chancellor says
contended behalf Of the plaintiffs that their exclusive
privilege establish and maintain railway between
Hamburg attaches foot of their road con-
Meeting places and that the construction of another road side by
side parallel with their road from Granteve to Hamburg
of twelve miles, operate otherwise than
papae of such exclusive privilege that other routes than
selected may be found by the defendants for their projected
and that its location proposed by them from GranteVle TO
Hamburg therefore, unauthorized by their charter glance at
map show that Granitevie nearly if not altogether
n direct course from Columbia Hamburg From Granitevie to
Hamburg conceded that the only practicable route for railway
by the valley of Horse Creek Other routes tor their road
ethan that by Granye be found but they are attended with
natural obstacles formidable be outlay OF
"capa wholly beyond the and the defendants 10
deny Hamburg by Gnieve and the valley OF Horse
"eek disable them utterly from completing their projected road
therefore, the only practical route that remains to the
defendants. Are they entitled to pursue it,"
Now your observe, that in the judgment OF the Court this
is only and particularly does the Chancellor justify him.
self in this opinion for he goes on osay
@n proposing adopt that route has not been shown that the
defendants than good h because
in truth regard that desirable and the BEST had
the plaintiffs their road direct course from Charleston to
Hamburg the the tracks of the two roads from ran
ieye to Hamburg could have occurred In carrying their road
Granteve rather its immediate vicinity the pn1 dYerge
considerably from the direct line between Charleston and Hamburg
The coincidence between the respective roads OF the
parties Gnieve to Hamburg the result OF that very d
vegene when the date its charter the plaintiffs the State
reserved the right the construction of railroad from
Columbia to Hamburg there involved in such reservation
the right authorize such road by at least the straight and direct
between those places Ihe palnH
ranee though pursuing for ten or twelve miles course
almost if not altogether in the direct line Columbia was built as
sur conferred by their charter and certainly not
in dogation of any power retained by the General Assembly a
thoze other like improvements then such location OF the
plaintiffs road be held be subodnation such reserved
power although its the result should be railway from
Columbia passing by Grantey and thence Hamburg with
track along the route and involving Tor that
tance incidental competition between the two roads AS already
remarked the plaintiffs exclusive privilege is restricted to railway
between the points indicated In their ana the
Cy Charleston But the projected road OF the defendants con-
stutes in no sense neither whole in part railway COM
muncaon with Charleston How blame be implied to the de-
PENDANTS for proceeding their road from Hamburg Graneve
when doing they pursuing with slight deviatons the direct
course Columbia confnng themselves so far as the route
concerned within the sctest limits their
Such was the decision of the Chancellor but it appealed from
and the volume of Richardson will be found the final ad
Indication The decision of the Court in a few lines
Whilst therefore the Court recognizes the abstract right OF the
defendants to cross m the decree of the Chancellor the
questions considered him. will retain the bill and endeavor under
to the relative rights and duties Of the parties In respect to the
crossing and also settle all points of dispute between the parties
with the subjects which have been brought under
" adjudication"
Now if the South Carolina Railroad Company anxious to
they the Supreme Court have made all the questions which
have since been the such frequent contenon There was
the place. and there the judiciary competent decide the case and
why they there seek that justice which they loudly de-
mandng Let them They chose not to ask further aid
of that but outside filed bill raising OF the very
questions involved the former and claimed the right this
mnary inquiry In that bill they asked for injunction to
stop our proceeding with the construction OF the road All OF that
c have been reached the other nevertheless tor