The Batesburg advocate. [volume] (Batesburg, S.C.) 1901-1911, 1904-08-18


"a the general assembly in his annual
report to the general assembly at the
session of 1904. 1t was The opinion or
pressed IT in that report, that the main
ISSUE, To wit. the constitutionality "a
'he merger act OF 1902, could not De
scttied IN II suit brought by any one IN
dNldual. aIiectinS a particular leased
road. lie also took the position in that
report mat III view ot the passage "
ho1 Ieei authorized to take amy step 10
test It's consutuuonaliIy without auluor-
h1 from tne Legislature. Iuasmuch 40
Lie attorney general report had uul
convened. but he toid me what he had
matter up. as 1 had opposed the pas
iLtIish me wltn u typewrIuen copy OK
tH'tt portion oI his report referring to
Tins matter, which he did. The attor
ney general himself says: When lh.
legislature convened / spoke to Senatcr
haJheid about bill with reference tu
ahvhuInS the code covering Arrest anil
bsl ana also about this matter as tn,
senator mad opposed the act authorizing
the leases. / told tho attorney genera
thai would take the matter up rnu'
/ introduced In tho session of 1904, this|
year. What is known the test act.
ana assume all responsibility for 1t.
luis act requires the attorney general
to forthwith bring a suit In the name OF
the state To test the constituionaiiy of
hs merger ac Of 1902, which had op-
posed. and IN one suit settle that whole
qUestion.
Ihs 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 is to be
settled when that case comes to trial.
When 1t is settled the road and the peo-
pl. 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 broughe
prior To the passage OF the Merger Act
Of 1902. as follows:
one by Isaac Edwards OF Lexington
county.
one by W. d. Nj Harmon in Lexing-
ton county.
one by ". A. Edwards in Aiken coun-
U. and
Ons by X s. Anderson in Edgetie!d
county.
The rights OF tho parties to these suits
whatever they may be. were preserved
IN this Test Act, unu they can have no
complaint against me.
But there were ten (lO) 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-
-.
one by Is. +. Holly in Aiken county.
one by L. Is. Glover in Aiken county
one by J. Z. Herrin in SaludI county.
one by A. A. NcManus In kershaw
county.
one by John Cash in oranseburs
county.
one by J. II. 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 bs 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" 1t il
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 a penalty since tho passage OF tho
Merger Act OF 1902
This Test Bill introduced by me vas
so manifestly just in its terms that
thirty one (3D senators voted for it and
only one % against 1t, thirty-two sena-
tors only being present. Every senator
present from this district voted for IL.
in the house seventy per cent go per
cent? OF the members present voted for
it-si1ty- eight to thirty. The members
OF the house from this district who
voted for 1t are: Mr.. Black, OF BAN
berg; Mr.. Colcock ana Mr. Bailey. OF
Beaufort: Mr. Middleton. of Hamptors
MT. Pattison. J. o., and Mr.. Walker OF
Barnwell; Mr.. Holman, OF Aiken: Mr.
Rainsford. OF Edgeheld. and Mr. Recdy
ana Mr. Of