The Savannah morning news., 1904-12-03
ARGUMENT HEARD
ON INJUNCTION
IN ewINNETT STREET CASE.
w. G. CHARLTON OPENED IN Be
HALF OF PLAINTIFFS.

DscIared Attitude of City Was Par
tisan-CIaimcd Gwinnett street
residents Might Better Have Help
ed Build subway Than Sustain
manage That viii Result From
LAYING of the TracLs-COI. Garrard
and Mr.. Lawrence Replied.
Practically the entire session of the
limited states Court yesterday was
taken up with the argument in the
Gwinnett street injunction case. The
argument was almost entirely on legal
pofnts. and yet it was interesting.
w. G. Charlton, Esq, who opened
for the plaintiff, Mr. ]. B. Hoist, stated
that the case was one which served
most excellently to illustrate the wis
dom of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the Constitution. Property had been
taken. he claimed, without due process
of law, damage had been done the
plaintiff and the city had acted in an
extremely partisan manner.
The Characterization of the action of
the city as partisan was one of the
most interesting features of the argu-
ment He claimed that all the city
should have done was to have re-
NAMED perfectly neutral, and allowed
the matter to be adjusted between the
other parties
Their action in taking sides with the
electric company showed clearly that
they Disseminated in favor of the
corporation as against the Gwinnett
street property holders. That this was
unjust and contrary to the constitu
tion and the effects of such action
should be stopped by injunction from
the court In addition, the method
of taking the property was, in the
opinion of the counsel, without due pro-
cess of law.
Better Have Aided subway.
The statement from Col. Garrard
that the city was bound to support
the position of the street railway, ow-
ing to the structural relations exist
ing between them, was scored by Mr.
Charlton.
He stated he took it to be the rela-
ton outgrowing from the subway mat
ter, but. held that the GsVinnett street
citizens could have better paid more
to the cost of building the subway
than either the city or the company
than suffer the damage that will re-
suit from the running of cars on
Gwinnett street.
Decisions of both the state and
United States courts were quoted fire.
quently in support of the positions he
had taken.
Argument for Respondents.
Coz. Garrard followed with an
argument for the position taken by
the city. He held that the law under
which the city had acted was =. COM
stitutional, that due process of law
had been taken in the granting of the
franchise and that no discrilainations
had been made against one citizen in
favor of another.
He stated that the line would be a
benefit to the city at large and that an
effort had been made to obstruct. it
by only a few. He replied fully to the
positions taken by Mr.. Charlton, and
supported his claims by decisions from
the courts.
In answer to the argument that the
act of 1894, under which the city was
alleged to have acted, was unconstitu-
tional, the city attorney declared it
did not matter in this case whether
or not that act was, as the code and
section of code under. which council
proceeded was constitutional, and that
justified its action.
Decision Was Reserved.
A. A. Lawrence, Esq, followed on
behalf of the Electric Company and
Mr.. Charlton concluded for the petit
TONERS.
The court announced that the matter
would be taken under advisement and
decision rendered later. This will
probable be handed down this morn
ing. Three was nothing said by the
court which gave the slightest inkling
as to what action would be taken
That the argument was closely fol-
lowed was shown by the frequent in
terruptions from the court with re-
quests to argue certain points at great
er length. In conclusion opposing
counsel were asked to submit a brief
on the differences between the code
and the act of 1894. These briefs were
submitted at o'clock