The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1891-04-14

law, 1T has been decided, Is a case in
which there Is y plaintiff, a defendant,
complaint, an answer and trial. but
the Actof December 90, 1890, contem-
plated nothing OF this kind. In the
definition of due process Mr.. McOrady
quoted Bump on Constitutional Decis-
ions, page $50.
tempted to mine In Coosaw River with
out permit, his property was fmme-
dlately forfeited to the State, and the
State was authorized to bring action
for claim and delivery, and in such case
was required to give no bond. If, after
| several years litigation, it was decided
that the Company was in the right, its
property would then be lost, and it
could get no redress since the State
could not be sued, and there would be
no bond on which toe sue. Further
more, the Act Of 1890 practically re-
pealed the Act by March 20, 1876, by
peal took place after the Coosaw Com
pany had spent vast sums Oh money on
its iplant, and its great property wss
thus to be swept away without any re-
dress from the Courts IF South Caro-
lima.
On the subject OF the State being a
plaintiff, Mr.. McCrady cited the cases of
Railroad. VS. Mississippi, 1O2 u. s., page
l4O; AmeS VS. Kansas, IL u. S., page
462; Tennessee VS. Davis, 100 u. s. page
269; Stone VS. South Carolina, III U. S.,
page 269; Stone VS. South Carolina, 16
s. O., page 544; Barker VS. Bowman, 9Th
5. O., page 1888, and many other author
tiles sustaining the same point.
ATTORNEY GENERAL POPE.
Mr.. McCrady was followed by at.
torney General Pope for the State. In
beginning Mr.. Pope submitted the fol-
lowing suggestion to the Court:
And now comes State of South Car
DINA by the Hon. \. J. Pope, the At
torney General of said State, and gives
the Court to understand and be in
formed that there is now pending and
being beard before the Court of Com mon
Pleas for Beaufort County the question
| OF the ordering an injunction and con-
tlnuing its receiver under the rule to
show case in said case in said Court
made and returnable on 7th April,
1891, and also on the question Of juris-
diction Of such Court.
4.J. POPE,
Attorney General,
State Of South Carolina"
MIR. Pope, after some Introductory
| remarks of personal nature, said that
In the argument of opposing counsel
he had detected two errors, one of leg
islative history and one Of State and
judicial history. 1t 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
aYoWlng the State, its mother, and quo
ted Shakespeare and several other au-
thorlties to sustain his position on this
point. lie 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.
PENDANT could come here with such
loud complaints. His remarks IN thi 8
part OF his argument smacked strongly
or what might be termed sarcasm. and
bis 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 a Court Of justice, and the
people OF South Carolina felt it acute
~ that this mining company was not
satisfied with the righteous conduct of
the State and sought to inject delay in
the proceedings, and thereby induce a
compromise. He wanted to disabuse
counsePs mind of the idea that the
State would consent to anything like
this. SouSh Carolina was neither Door.
nor wanting in spirit, and no concaten-
alton of events could procure a com
promise. The State had been insulted
and her laws shall be yindicated. and
this creature of hers Cthe 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 a lengthy trib-
ute TO South Carolina, the United States
Federal Courts.
The filing of petition and bond does
not constitute q transfer of case. he
SAID. 1t is the duty cf 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-
tlon being purely statutory, he read the
Act OF Congress of 1887 amendaUory to
the Act of 1876, which latter Act, he
| Saiu, was 1faughC with great mischief
and arrogance to the States. Every
case cited, he said, by the opposing
counsel had been decided under the old
mischieyOus Act, and not one under
the new Act of 1887. Under the law of
1887 the Court was compelled to con.
line 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 q 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 part Of the value of the States
property.
He asserted that the State could not
grant In perpetulty to q 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 Stats can
take the property of private citizens
and appropriate it to rights OF way for
corporations, such as railways, canals.
etc. But she holds nayigable rivers
and the soil beneath them in trust for
all her citizens. She holds them as
sovereign, and any act which gives
| fhpfn fyuu COR, ,ha np,,o,,. l>,, a,