The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-05-16
The enterprise Railroad Company.

The enterprise Railroad Company.
The splenetic remarks in which some OF
the members OF the City Council indulged
on Tuesday night cannot receive the appro-
val OF those citizens who expect the Alder
men OF Charleston to discuss matters OF
grave interest with discretion, and to act
upon them with impartialty. Admitting
that there is no ulterior motive, and that the
acrid criticisms upon tho Enterprise Rail-
road Company have no other object than
the vindication OF the corporate rights OF The
city. it is none the less evident that the ma
ority OF the CITY Council have taken
course which exposes them to serious mis-
construction, ito nothing worse.
The Enterprise Railroad Company, under
their charter, claim that they have authority
to lay their tracks through the streets OF the
CITY without the consent or approval OF the
City Council; but the City Council deny that
the Legislature can grant this authority,
and when work on the road began the Chief
OF Police was instructed to give notice that
he must arrest any persons who might pe
found breaking the earth or obstructing the
streets for the purpose OF laying the tracks.
The work was suspended, and the company
obtained an injunction from Judge Graham
restraining the City Council from any further
Interference with them. This enabled the
Company to resume operations. In the
meanwhile the Mayor had consulted with
the City Attorney and the City Recorder,
both of whom gave the opinion that the city
could not prevent the building OF the road.
Il was deLzriuinod, however, TO employ
counsel, and at the meeting held on Tuesday
night the City Council engaged the services
Of two lawyers, with q fee OF one thousand
dollars each, who should test the question in
the courts. The counsel 30 engaged frankly
said that the case was full OF doubt, and we
know that counsel OF high rank agree in the
opinion given by Mr.. Corbin and Judge
Prlngle; but the majority OF the Council were
not Ia the humor to stick at triaes, and the
motion for the engagement OF counsel pre-
vailed.
We do not undertake to decide whether
the General Assembly has, or has not, the
authority to confer upon a corporation the
power to tear up the streets and lay tracks
without regard to municipal regulations; but
we do believe that the public interest is best
served by remitting these matters, under
proper restrictions, to the decision OF the
people OF the city or town In which the work
is to be done, and We do not suppose that
there would have been any objection il
the City Council had quietly, through its
own officer, obtained settlement OF the
question. This is not done. The City
Council, with the adverse decisions OF two
experienced lawyers before them, appropri-
ate two thousand dollars for counsel fees;
although in the same meeting an alderman
notifies the Council that some of the prop
erty OF the city has been seized by creditor
whose just debt the city refuses to pay. The
same alderman was confident that he would
be able to prevent the creditor from paying
bimseli There is not money to pay that
claim, but sum sufficient, very nearly, to
liuuidate the claim in full is to be thrown
away in suit in which success would be
more disastrous than defeat. Nor do we
think that the Council had any right to ap-
proprl.te this two thousand dollars for the
payment of eminent counsel. 1t is just one
of those :ratances in which an Injunction
might save the city considerable sum Of
money.
Unfortunately the animus OF the majority
of the Council was made evident by their
conduct in regard to the license fee proposed
to be levied upon the City Railways. The
fee suggested was one hundred dollars for
each car, but an amendment was at once
offered to make the fee five hundred dollars
for each freight car-that is, for each of the
cars with which the bulk Of the work OF the
Enterprise Railroad is to be done. The
Council could not materially increase the
fee upon passenger cars, because by so do
ing they would ipjure the present monopoly,
which has passenger cars only. They
therefore confined the proposition to freight
cars, with the hope of taxing out OF exist
ence what they could not kill in the courts.
The new license law, upon the request OF the
President OF the City Railway Company, was
allowed to lie over, and no vote was had;
but, as we have pointed out the whole drift
Of the proceedings shows that certain men,
bers OF the City Council are more intent
upon crushing the Enterprise Railroad than
rpon consulting the public good. That
railroad, or some similar work, is nee
essary for the proper conducting of the
growing commerce Of the city. And the
City Council, in opposing the building OF the
road for personal reasons, are standing in
the way OF the development Of the trade Of
Charleston.