The Dawson news. (Dawson, Ga.) 1889-current, 1889-11-06


the lease bill and lease contract,
and the Senate will pardon nue. a
few words of history inthat connec-
ton. lie who now addresses you
well remembers what transpired
when the bill which resulted in
the present lease came before the
Legislature, There we're ia the
senate few OF US, mostly young
men, struggling to maintain the
interest, honor and integrity of
Georgia. although We were in
hopeless minority. We felt that
there was danger, that Georgia
was about to DO plundred in her
own house and by those who ought
to be her friends. We invoked the
council OF our friends. We con-
ferred with Mr.. Toombs, Mr.. Hill,
Mr.. Sthephens, and Others of
Georgia's statesmen. They advis>
ed US to vote for the lease bill as
the best that could be done under
the circumstan ces. BY common
consent and with one sccord this
liI.e OF reasoning was pursued. 1t
MAS true that twenty five thousand
dollars per month was a small REM
ia! for the property, but it was be-
lieved that in order to keep pace
with the rail road progress aud
rail road development of the
times the lessees would oe con-
strained to make Improvements and
TO place betterments on the road,
which would in some measure COM
pensate for the low rate tor rental,
This, though a trcit, was n much
discussed and we'll understood cons
dition Of the transaction. 1t never
occurred to those statesmen and pa
triots that there would be a large
claim for betterments preferred
against the State; and we may we'll
imagine tina. if any earthly consid-
Grafton could disturb their eternal
rest it would be the thought that a
claim so unfounded and iniqui-
tous should be paid by the
State which they loved, honoIed
and illustrated 80 well. And there
is nothing in the lease act to war;
rant the shadow Of claim for hetter~
ments. On the contrary, as the
journals show, an effort was made
10 incorporate a betterments teat~
ure INTO the bill, and it was deieat-
ed by an Overwhelming and crush
ing majority. Indeed il is not de-
nieI, but it is admitted by those
interested in the lease, that there is
no legal right to support such claim.
Whence then comes this claim tor
betterment>? There is nothing i'll
the lease act or the lease contract
to authorize it. BY the actiop OF
the Lee islaturs it was expressly
negatived. There is nothing in
the law 10 support it. But you
hear men speak with bated breath
about the courts us if there was dan
er to the State from that quarter.
Why, the lease act and the lease
contract constitute the law OF the
case and the courts will be govern
ed by them They will construe
and enforce that and that contract.
1t is said, however, that while
the lessees nave no legal light they
have an equitable claim tor better
mcnts against the State. But it is
a Fundamental and we'll established
rule Of iurispl udence that equity
follows the laws and the courts
will recognize no equitable clsim
warranted by the lease act and the
lease contract. And mn appeal TO
the generosity of the State, based
upon this ground, comes without
merit or force when it is femem-
bered that it was tacit. if not an
express, condition of the transaction
that there should be nothing paid
Tor betterments.
But it is said again that there
are some twenty miles of side track
laid down by the lessoes which
they might remove or undertake
to remove. Grant, tor the sake
cf argument, that they have the
right to remove such side track,
worth perhaps one hundred thous-
add dollars. Better that be done
than that Georgia should pay mill
lious or even three quarters Of a
million for bettkrmepts, But, |
doubt not, that GeoFgia's executive
will be equal to the emergency and
will protect the interest Of the state
even in these tide tracks. Now,
speaking as a lawyer, / am pre-
pared to admit that upder a differ,
ent lease act and lease
contract the lessees might have the
right to remove side tracks which
they have constructed where none
had already been placed. For IN
stance, If the history and character
of the lease bill and lease contract
were such as to leave the gensr-
al law governing the relations of
landlord and tenant in full force
and operation, then that might
be the case. 1t would, however,
still be judicia! rather than Leg
islative question. And it may be
stated farther, that it the lessees
could make such removal at all it
would be by virtue o. a legal right:
But how, | ask, can such removal
be made when there is confessedly
no legal right TO betterments?
But it is urged that it is neces-
sary to ascertain what the present