The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1901-01-30
BUYING A COMPETING LINE
Railroads Must be Wholly With
in this State to be Debarred.


Judge Richard G.. Watts has filed his
decree with the clerk of Count at Aiken
in the case of Mcneil VS.. the Southern
Railway company. This is an action
brought by Men ell to recover penalty
against the Southern of 500 pcY day
for leasing and operating an alleged
competing and parallel road The
case arose out of the SOuthcrn's lease
Of the South Carolina and Georgia
which the plaintlf claims was con
trary to the constitution and the statute
laws of the State. When the case was
heard the road, through its atlolncvs,
Mcssrs. b. l.. Abncy, oil Columbia: J.
w. Barnwcll,'of Charleston, and the
llcndcrsons, of Aiken, intcrposcd a
demurrer. This was resisted by
Messrs Boykin Wright, of Augusta,
and G. w. Croft II son, OF Aiken.
Judge Watts took the matter under adj
visemcnt and the following is a synop-
sis of his decree:
After stating the fact that this suit
was brought by Mcneil TO enforce the
penalty provided by the act oc 1897 of
500 per day Tor each day that a road
operates or controls competing or
parallel line, and after showing that
the plaintiff must bring himse strictly
under the terms of this act, his Honor
uses the following language as to this
act and its effect on the case: The
complaint alleges that the South Caro-
lima ard Georgia Railroad company
owned and was operating a line which
was partly within the Sta'c of South
Carolina and partly without the State
of South Carolina, to w.t. within the
State of Gcorgia, and it also ALLEGES
that the Southern Railway company
owned and was operating Il line which
was partly within said state and partly
outside said State, and the contention
is that, as the southern Railway com
pany has leased the line of the South
Carolina and Georgia Railroad company
contrary to such statute, the plaintiff
is entitled to bring this action for the
penalty. In the title of the aforesaid
act the expression is used " competing
railroad lines within this State" Ii
is impossible for the court in constru-
ing this highly penal statute to leave
cut of consideration the plain and eX-
press terms " competing railroad lines
within this Statc.' s;uch expression
taken into consideration clearly shows
| that the manifest intention Of the Leg
| islaturc was to give TO the citizen this
penalty when one railroad line lying
within this State purchases another sc
| lying, and not otherwise and so hold
So holding it is plain and dmanfcst that
whatever other defects may appear il
the complaint, the plaintiff has faiet
to bring himself within tho terms O
this penal statute. Judge Watts lhci
| declared the act Of 1904 TO be rcpcalct
| by the constitution Of 1895, inasmucl
as this act provides remedy whcr
there has been competition bctwcci
points along the line Of the leased rail
road, while the cons stiutlon, cCmn
later, provided that there must be com
petition between competing lincs, thu
making the law less restrictive. Hi
Honor then sums up his discussion @
this phase OF the case as follows: Nj
conclusion is that, while the section {
the constitution in question gave tn
1 'i0''p w WV pltt' otSil ITO It" plIICN
to prevent any corporation violatin
, the provisions of said section, the az
of 1897, which is the basis of tn
action, was restricted III its scope an
tenor to allowing those who are con
mon informcrs to recover a pcnall
7 simply where the competing lines
question lie wholly within the Stat
I Judge Watts, however, refused to ho
: that the act of 1897 was unconstitr
G tional, but held that the word compe
= ing must be construed in q broad ar
liberal sense, following the decision
the supreme court of Georgia in II
i State vs. the Central Railway, 80 5. !
d Reporter, and that in this case suniclc
+ competition had not been alleged
:. constitute cause of action; thereto
II he declared thatlhe complaint was d
missed for both of the reasons Civ,
s above.