The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1869-02-27
I'M THE SUPREME COURT.
Columbia, s. C., January 20 1869
ARGUMENT OF HONORABLE c. g. MEMMNGER OF COUNSEL FOR

be the result of apprehension on the part OF my 1rnas 1 he
spring which have here about to catch their own fingers
We make no such controversy that which they describe We DO
not claim their land shall right one inch until
the preliminary question which they refer has been decided by the
Court So the whole cmor raised here and elsewhere ca with
very brief statement be shown to be utterly unfounded
Now the question involved? 1T is not whether we can make
id to Augusta or run road parallel of the South
Carolina Railroad from Ganieve Hamburg 60 their land
Just permitted do the lands of others No. that winch
has aroused their feelings such extent this matter the knoW
edge that we are deprive that corporation of large amount OF
revenue Hence the longer this agitation be kept alive the longer
will they continue make profit of five ten thousand dollars
month If they @ will not be due to the fact that we nave
gone land but because have built road Build as we
may portion of trade will be lost; and this may please
YOUR Honors the aramc of the 1t will deprive them OF
that tax thyx years they have imposed every man
who was obliged travel their road Augusta but at the same
time gives country another link in that great chain OF railroads
which u York with New Orleans and saves every traveller
an abstraction from his purse of toll seventy miles OF the South
Carolina Railroad Therefore that this controversy has been kept
up and we have been fought to the death IS IN va
therefore for them say they have fastened this matter conc
sion.
On the 1th of April 1867 South Carolina Railroad Company
filed bill this Court which they forth the invasion OF their
rights by the Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company ana among
other things follows That the charter OF the said Columbia
and Hamburg Railroad Company mp the obligation OF the contract
between the State and your orators and that the rights powers
and privileges granted said charter are inconsistent Wlth repugnan
o and derogaon of the rights powers and privileges vested your
under and by the Acts Of the General Assembly
hereneore referred That the projected track of the said Co
umba and Augusta Railroad connects points and places already
connected by the road of your orators the track of
orators for considerable distance weny or thirty miles,
sin the general direction of the road of your orators and on land
granted your for right of and competing road
that bill the defendants filed answer admitting that they
about their road land that granted to them as right OF
The Court will observe that this of the points now
being argued and what the udgment 1t refreshing to read
such enuncaon of judicial opinion The Chancellor says
at contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that their exclusive
privilege establish and maintain railway communication between
Charleston and Hamburg attaches to every loot OF he aa con- %
de and parallel with their road from Graneve to
distance Of ten twelve miles cannot operate otherwise than as
papabe of such exclusive privilege that other routes than
selected be found by the defendants for their projected
oa and that its location proposed by them from drantev to
Hamburg therefore unauthorized by their charter glance at
the map will show that Granve very nearly not altogether
Gin direct Columbia Hamburg From Cranteve to
Hamburg it conceded that the only practicable route for railway
that by the valley of Horse Greek Other for their road
ethan that by Graneye may be found but they attended with
obstacles formidable to be overcome save BY an outlay OF
capital wholly beyond the and OF the defendants Io
eny them Hamburg Granev and the valley of Horse
Crek disable them utterly from completing their road
a therefore the only practical route that remains 10 tne
defendants. Are they entitled to pursue it Z?
Now your Honors observe the Judgment Of the Court
the only route and particularly does the Chancellor justify NM
self in this opinion for he goes tosay: .r
proposing adopt that route has not been shown that the
defendants acting otherwise than in good faith and because they
truth regard desirable and the best; had
the plaintiffs built their road In direct course from Charleston TO
Hamburg the coincidence the tracks of the roads from Gran
ee Hamburg could not have occurred In their ROAD
ranteve rather its immediate vicinity the plaintiffs dverge
considerably the direct line between Charleston and Hamburg
The coincidence referred between the respective roads OF the
parties from Graneve Hamburg the result Of that very d
ygenc when the date of its charter the plaintiffs the State
reserved the right to authorize the construction railroad from
Columbia to Hamburg there not involved in such reservation
the right authorize such road by least the straight and direct
course those pac The plaintiffs road from Hamburg to
Granteve though pursuing for ten twelve miles course
almost if altogether the direct line to Columbia built
suedy conferred by their charter and certainly
derogaion power retained by the General Assembly
tho other like improvements If then such location OF the
plaintiffs road be held to be ubordnaOn to such reserved
power although its exercise the result should be railway from
Columbia passing by Granieve and thence Hamburg with
concurrent along the and involving for that dis
tance an incidental competition between the roads AS already
remarked the plaintiffs exclusive privilege is restricted to railway
between the points indicated in their charter and the
Charleston But the projected road Of the defendants
stitutes and neither in whole railway
municaton with Charleston How blame be implied the de-
PENDANTS for proceeding with their road from Hamburg Granee
when doing they pursuing with slight devatos the direct
Columbia and connng themselves far the
of their concerned within the limits their charer?
Such the decision of the Chancellor but it appealed from
and thirteenth volume of Richardson will be found the final ad
Indication The decision of the Court is in few lines:
Whilst therefore, the Court recognizes the abstract right Of the
ms the decree the Chancellor the
questions considered by him. will retain the bill and ndeaor under
fix the relative rights and duties of the parties respect to the
crossing and also settle all points of dispute between the parties
connected with the subjects which have been brought under
adjudication"
Now the South Carolina Railroad Company
have their rights determined here the place come Could
they Supreme Court have made all the questions which
have since been the of such frequent conenn There
the place. and there the Judiciary competent decide the and
why did they there seek that justice which they loudly de-
mandng here Let them They chose not ask further aid
of that Court but outside filed BILL raising of the
questions involved the former and claimed the right this
mnary inquiry In that bill they asked for injunction
stop proceeding with the construction of the road All Of that
could have been reached in the other nevertheless for
4