The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1904-08-18

BRING the whole matter to the attention
ut the general assembly in his annual
report to the general assembly at the
session OF 1904. 1t was The opinion OF
Tue attorney general, and he so eX-
pressed it lii that report, that the main
lssuc, 10 Wit, the constitutionality oi
lne merger act OF 1902, could not be
settled in d suit brought by any one 40
u,vldual, aILectinS a particular leased
road. lie also took the position in that
report tnal IN View OF the passage OF
the merger ny the legislature, he did
not feei authorized to take any step to
lest its conslltutionalily without autnor-
10y from the legislature, inasmuch Us
tAe act had authorized the consolidation.
LIE attorney general report had not
Deen printed at the time the legislature
convened, but he tod me what he had
recommended and asked me TO take this
mailer up, as l had opposed the pas
sage OF lne merger act, and promised 10
tul Iisn me with a typewriter copy or
that portion or his report referring to
this matter, which he did. The attor-
ney general himself says: When tho
legislature convened l spoke to Senator
NaJheld about a bill with reference 10
amending the code covering Arrest AMI
.Eall and also about this matter as the
senator had opposed the act authorizing
tho leases" l told the attorney general
that would take the matter up, and
/ introduced in the session Of 1904, this
year, what Is known as the test act,
AMI assume all responsibility for It.
This act requires the attorney general
to forthwith bring a suit In the name OF
the state to test the constituionaliy Of
he merger &C Of 1902, which l had op-
posed. and in one suit settle that whole
question.
The action authorized to be brought
by the state has already been brought
by the attorney general, on the part OF
the state, and the whole matter u to be
settled when that case comes. to trial.
When it Is settled the road and the peo-
pie will know where they stand.
When l introduced this Test Bill there
were pending only four (D suits to re-
cover penalties, which had been broushe
prior to the passage Of the Merger Act
Of 1909. as follows:
One by Isaas Edwards Of Lexington
county.
One by w. d II. Harmon in Lexing-
ton county.
One by W. A. Edwards In Aiken coun-
ty, and
One BY B. 8. Anderson in Edgeheld
county.
whatever they may be. were preserved
in this Test Act, and they can have no
complaint against me.
But there were ten Q0) cases which
had been brought since the passage OF
the Merger Act Of 1902 that were inter-
fered with. They are as follows:
One by w. A. Edwards in Aiken coun-
y.
One by b F. Holly In Aiken county.
One by P. B. Glover In Aiken county.
One by ]. c. Herrin in Saluda county.
Ono by A. A. AcAanus in Kershaw
county.
One by John Cash in Orangeburg
county.
One by J. H. Skinner In Barnwell
county.
Three by A. B. Gaines in Cherokee
county.
Some. Of these suits are for the same
cause and cover the same time, although
brought by different persons.
The legislature has authorized the con-
solidation and the roads is now doing
what the legislature said it might do,
and the legislature in this Test Act
would not allow suits brought since 1902
to be proceeded with. The act Of 1902
authorized the leases to be made and
the penalty in the act Of 1897 Is for
operating in violation Of law" It Is
very plain that the Southern was not
operating in violation Of law" since
1902, but was operating according to law,
and, therefore, no individual had a right
to penalty since the passage Of the
Merger Act Of 1902.
This Test Bill introduced by me was
20 manifestly just in its terms that
thirty-ons (31) senators voted for it and
only one CD against it, thirty-two sena-
tors only being present Every senator
present from this district voted for It.
In the house seventy per cent GO per
cent? Of the members present voted for
it-sixty- eight to thirty. The members
Of tho house from this district who
voted for it are: Mr.. Black. Of Bam-