The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1897-02-25
The Bill TO Contlscnte Abandoned
Railroad Property.

Mr.. Williams bill providing for tho
forfeiture to tho Stntc OF abandoned
railroad property was thcn talkon up.
Tho committee amendments wore
agreed to and thon tho bin was ordered
to Il final reading in this shape:
Section |. That any person, company
or corporation owning, operating or
controlling any line OF railroad in this
State which shall tear up or remove
It's track, or attempt to tear up or to
discontinue regular freight and pas
senger service thereon for tho period
OF five days, except when prevented by
the act OF God or the public enemy,
shall be deemed to have abandoned the
same, and because Of such abandonment
shall forfeit to the State it's charter
ana all tho tlacks, cars, rights OF way,
lands, dcpots and all 0thcr propcrCy
connected with or belonging to the
said railroad.
Soc. =. Whenever it shall appear to
tho Attorney General that any such
person, company Or corporation has
abandoned it's limo of railroad, he shall
proceed to forfeit tho Same as aforc-
sain by rule against such person, COM
pany or corporation in a court OF com
pctcnt Jurisdiction, requiring them to
show cause why the same should not
visions o! this aCj shall not apply f.
| street railways.
Sac. }. This act shah take effect on
| approval and shall apply to any and ali
| railroads that may hereafter be re.
| ccived by the State railroad commits.
| sion and opened for operation.
Mr. Mccullough made an effort to
| have the House reconsider tho vote
whereby it had passed Mr.. Williams
bill providing for tho forfeiture to the
State Of abandoned railroad property.
lie feared that this bill was aimed at
q road in his county known as tho
"Swamp Rabbit" TO pass this bin
would amount to dishonest act on the
parl OF the State. He gave history
OF the road down to its purchase by a
citizen OF Grcenvillc. 1t was wrong to
rob him OF his property as this act
would 40. he Oifcrcd an amendment
TO prevent tho property from revort-
ing to tho State il tho purchaser could
not operate 1t at Onco.
Mr.. Williams said this bill did affect
this road, but 1T was not intended to
Affect ltalone. The people Of tho State
mad built this road and wero entitled
to the convcnienccs OF travel. The man
had refused to run the road and had
said that the people could be damned.
Hc was even tearing up the track. He
then cited the case Of the Chester and
Chcraw road. If tho officials wished
to, undor tho present law, they could
tear up tho road and deprive tho pco.
pic OF his county, who had paid thou
sands of dollars for it, OF the privileges
OF 81 railroad.
Mr.. John y. Thomas held that under
the constitution they could not rob any
one man OF his personal property "with-
out due process OF law" The, could
not confiscatc property by q legislative
act.
Mr.. Blythe supposed that jho pur-
chaser bought Che road AS q spccula.
tion. The purchaser stopped the run
ming of trains. He was now cnjoincd
from tearing the track up. He could
not tell what tho court was going to
do. The people had come to him ask
ing him to do all he could to see that
they obtained thcrrights. He had
agreed for Mr.. Williams to introduce
tho bill, as he had u similar case in his
| part OF the State.
Mr.. Patton thon madc q legal protest
| against such bill. 1t was clearly; ab-
sOlutcly unconstitutional.
Mr.. Livingston wanted the matter
considered without reference to special
| cases. Railroads wore public corpora
| tiOns. He took issue with Mr.. Patton.
| He said this bill was not alone to cure
present ills, but also to control railroad
property in the future.
Mr.. Mccullough said this was moth
ing moro or less than an attempt tc
blackmail the purchaser OF this road
into operating it. This was the pur.
pose Of the bill.
MIR. Blythe thought this language
improper. The gentleman who was