The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1891-04-15
= U : O% -
Attorney General,
State of South Carolina"

Y. J. POPE,
Attorney General,
State of South Carolina"
Mr.. Pope, after some Introductory
remarks Of a personal nature. said that
in the argument of opposing counsel
he had detected two errors, one Of leg
islatiye history and one Of State and
judicial history. It was news to the
State Of South Coralina that the Coo
saw Company first saw the light IN
1876 1t was the child of an Act of the
2Sth of March, 1870, he said, and, con-
tinuing, he gave what he claimed was
the history of the provisions OF that
Act.
Mr.. Pope's style Is impassioned and
earnest, and he referred at some length
to the action of the Coosaw Company
in, as he expressed it, ungratefully dis
avowing the State, its mother, and quo
ted Shakespeare and several other au-
thorities to sustain his position on this
point. He asserted with much warmth
the determination of the State to give
and to claim what was right, and asked
what the State had done that the de-
fendant could come here with such
loud complaints. His remarks in this
part of his argument smacked strongly
of what might be termed sarcasm, and
his references to opposing counsel as
these young men" caused some amuse-
ment to those gentlemen. The State,
he said, had bowed her sovereign head
to come into Court of justice, and the
people of South Carolina felt it acute
ly that this mining company was not
satisfied with the righteous conduct of
the State aud sought to inject delay in
the proceedings, and thereby induce a
compromise. He wanted to disabuse
counserS mind OF the idea that the
State would consent to anything like
this. SouYh Carolina was neither poor,
nor wanting in spirit, and no concaten-
alton of events could procure COM
promise. The State had been insulted,
and her laws shall be vindicated, and
this creature Of hers Che Coosaw Com
pany) made to respect her. No power.
save that of the United States Courts
could stay her right to make this crea-
ture bow in submission to her righte-
Gus will. He here paid lengthy trib-
ute to South Carolina, the United States
and Chief Justice Marshall. and the
Federal Courts.
The fling of a petition and bond does
not constitute a transfer Of case, he
said. 1t is the duty CT suitor who
!! wishes transfer to appear in the State
Court and settle the matter there, and
any other course indicated lack OF
courtesy toward the State Court. On
the point OF the United States jurisdic-
tion being purely statutory, be read the
Act of Congress of 1887 amendauory to
the Act of 1875, which latter Act, he
said, was fraught with great mischief
and arrogance to the States. Every
case cited, he said, by the opposing
counsel had been decided under the old
mischievouS Act, and not one under
the new Act OF 1887. Under the law of
1887 the Court was compelled to con-
fine itself in such cases to the com
plant filed in the State Court. This
was not true under the old law, and it
was there that the difference between
the Acts Of 1875 and 1887 appeared.
The petition to this Court states no
facts which raises Federal question.
From the beginning Of this case the
great cry on the part of the defendants
had been the great amount OF money
that they had paid to the State, but
they said nothing about the money they
had made out of the Coosaw River.
The amount they paid to the State was
only a part Of the value OF the States
property.
He asserted that the State could not
grant in perpetulty to few persons
the exercise of rights which belonged to
all her citizens. Any such Act of the
Legislature is repealable. On the prin-
cipal of eminent domain, the State can
take the property of private citizens
and appropriate it to rights OF way for
corporations, such as railways, canals,
etc. But she holds navigable rivers
and the soil beneath them in trust for
all her citizens. She holds them as a
sovereign, and any act which gives
them away can be undone by a suisse
queut Legislature. In support OF this
be quoted the final decision in the
famous louisiana slaughter house case,
and argued that a Legislature could
not bind another Legislature to such
grants where the whole people were dl-
rectly interested. In reply to ques-
ton from the Court. Mr.. Pope ex-
planned more explicitly that he held
that where an Act was passed by one
Legislature confining public rights to a
few individuals, a subseq uent Leglsla-
tore could annul it.
GOING INTO ANCIENT HISTORY.
This company may flourish, he said,
but in the end it would be overta6en.
Charges had been made, though they
may De untrue. that the inception OF
these matters in the Legislature were
not handsome will use no stronger
term.
Mr.. Smythe: Nov, if he wants to re-
fer to those things, let him put them
in the pleadings, and we will meet him
now"
Mr.. Pope: II will not refer to these
! matters If the company behaves IN a