Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

Mrvnieli has fur its H^BlTora of thu highest ." I pP^an issue for the trial of P^rompetont to decido them. Bffio charter of tho Columbia aud Hmy, for it is there that we lind what BWnto it. And 1 desire to call your atten jBHPPpW^lhat hy tho Act of 1858, (12 Stat., 596,") this corporation is formed for the construction of a railroau "on tike most practicable route, from some point in or near the City of Columbia to the Savannah River, at or near the Town of Ham? burg," etc. In 18?O, when that charter was amended, the words, "on the most practicable route," were omitted, and "as speedily as may be practicable1' were inserted instead. By the eighteenth section of the charter of 1863 it was pro? vided: "That said company shall have the right, when necessary, to conduct tho said road* across or along any public road or water course, provided said company shall not obstruct any public road without constructing another equally as good andi us convenient," etc. Section 20: " In the absence of any contract, cte., it shall be presumed that the land upon \Yhich the road may be constructed with the space of sixty-five feet on each side of the centre of the road, has been granted to the company." Section 21 : "All lands not heretofore granted nor appropriated bylaw to the use of the State, within sixty-five foot of the centre of the road, shall vest in the company." Any grant ol tho same thereafter "shall be void." Now, may it please thc Court, we submit that tho answer to tho claim of tho Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company is found in its own charter, lt will bc observed, that aocording to the amended. Act of 1863, there is no location marked, but the power to construct is given as between termini only. There is no oxpress language nor clear intent of tho Legislature to delegate to it without qualification tho exercise of eminent domain. Fortunately, for us, tho extent of the powers of n railroad where its termini simply are given, is a question that has passed into legal adjudication, us I shall presently show. The eighteenth section gives tho right when necessary to conduct said road arras* or alon-/ any public road or water course; and the twenty-first section restricts tho corporation from a claim upon any land which has been heretofore appropri? ated by tho law to the uso of the State. Judge "Willard-Is not that clause understood as a virtual proprietary grant of the State of all lands not otherwise appro? priated ? Mr. Magrath-Be it GO ; but remember that that which is claimed is that which has been already appropriated. What? ever land a corporation is authorized by charter to luke from an individual, is accepted thenceforth as ?and appropriated by law to the use of the State. The Columbia and Augusta Rail? road Company, however, claim that under a general grant oi authority to construct a road between certain termini, a righi is given to appropriate to itself ianda which had been already appropriated by law to another corporation : and, therefore, t? such to the use of the State. In other words tho Columbia ant Augusta Railroad Company claim, what its charter especially excludes it from claiming. And now 1 wish to bring directly to yrour notice the gram of tho right of way to the Columbia and Augusta RailrOlU Company for sixty-five feet. 1 submit, that when u corpo ration goos before the Legislature of South Carolina, asks ? charter to construct a railroad, and obtains the right to takt sixty-five feet from tho centre of the road, that is a circum stance which every Court will consider in determining tin 2uestion of the intent of the Legislature as to the location ant irection of the road. And when tho General Assembly o this State gave the Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company tho power 10 construct their line, and to take sixty-five feet oi each side of thu centre ol'their road, ut the .same time declaring it shall take no property or lands already appropriated to tin use of tho State ; it ia not within the power ot thal corporatioi to say, it will take but twenty feet ; and by that procure th use of a line upon which it could not go with its gran of sixty-five feet. Its charter is a contract between tho Stat and corporation, and thc latter could not place the road upoi any land it was not expressly authorized to take. Th right to locate the road carried with it tho right to sixty five feet on each Bide of its centre; and the right to sixty-fiv .?VT-o^st^give the right to tear up the roadbed itself Of th fl^PlpHBVcdina Railroad Company. Wherevor the Columbi *~ ima Augusta Railroad Company can locate its lino, there ii charter gives it sixty-five feet from its centre. And if Judg Platt has power to locale tho line of that road, ho has no po we to deny to that corporation any right incident to that lino whicl the charter gives. If ho has power to locate the line upon th right of way of tho South Carolina Railroad, it can only b because it is the right of the Columbia and Augusta Railroai to have there its line ; and if such is its right, he cannot lix : limit greater than its charter provides. Your Honors have had read to you the bill filed by th South Carolina Railroad Company in the case that was belbr Chancellor Carroll, for the purpose of showing that this line wa in controversy in that bill; but the counsel on the other sid have not read to you the Answer of thc Columbia and August Railroad Company denying that it was in controversy. Poi mit mo to supply the omission. 1 rend now from tho Answer o tho Columbia and Augusta Radicad Company: "Further these defendants pay and admit that They hav '"laid out the line of track,'extending from ti point on th " Charlotte and South Carolina Railroad, within tho city limit " of Columbia, through the Town ol Hamburg, to a point on th "Georgia Bailroad within the city limits of Augusta. The "stato that the first surveys of said line were mado as earl "as thc spring and summer ol 1854, under a charter grunted b "the Act. of tho General Assembly, ratified on the 20th day < "December, A. D. 1853, but which was repealed by the Act r " tho Assemby hereinbefore referred lo, ratified on tho 21st da " of December, A. D. 1858. and that the surveys of the preset "line now being worked upon, were made as carly as the fall < "tho year 1863. They admit that they have commenced th " work of constructing their railroad track, having commence " the grading in the fall of I860, at Granilevillo, >n-ir thc line < "tho railroad of complainants, which connects Charleston an " Hamburg, and subsequently at sundry points along this h'n "and that they have continued to work on tho same ever sine "(except during ti few weeks next after the march of Gol Sherman's army through thc Slate.) "They admit thnt they uro prcising forward the completion of their ?aid rond ; ttl "the grading of their roadbed hus been nearly wholly completed throughout the cnti "extent of thc r<fad ; that they uro now construoting nnd i.? \ e now compli tc 1 a cost "bridge of stone and iron across thc Conjur?e. * They n!?o admit that tho trw "of their railroad in {;I..->S?D" between .!;<. points from nu.i to which tho ?runo ls 11 "thoriied te ho oon?tmoted> does pas? over tho trook and land* nf th? Smith c roii 1 "Kailroad Company, and thc same must of nocesaity ?.?us over tho said track or uv "the track of thc Greenville and Columbia Railroad Company. "Further answering, theio defendants -.any that thc charter granted to them by 1 "General Assembly, dues in any manner impair the obligation ot nny contract ina "betwoen tho State of South Carolina and thc complainants; they dony that 1 "rights, power* and privileges granted in thc ehartoi to these d?fendants aio 1.1 ni "manner inconsistent with, repugnant to, <>r in derogation of tho right?, powers r.i "privileges vested in the complainants, under and by virtue of tho Act?; ot tim (ienct "Assembly referred to; they deny that the projected trn-.'t of tho C.?1.en'.ia nnd A "gusta Railroad connect.-' pointa already cn nortel !.;. any i.-.ii. ?.nd o| tho eoinplui "ants which is projected by, or as to which the prohihil iou mont ioncd in tho char fer "tho complainant?, or in any of the amendments oi alterations tlioroto applied. * ?<?..* And these defendants aver that in nothing wbioh they have ulror. "done towards the construction of their cou tempt, ti i ni.nd, and in nothing whi "they propose to do, or whL-h in any event will bo necessary to bo dono In referen "thereto, viii there be any interference teith, or iufringment of t'-<e chartered righ "powere and privileges belonging !.> thc complainants, or aug obtrudion in the f "enjoyment by the complainants of their righi uf tcay, or of ung triter franchin 0 txa " eice privilege, granted to or possessed btf them." Thus they sait' that they did not intend to invada any corporates rigl franchise, or privilege of tliu South Carolina Railroad Company, and wc believed; for Chancellor Carroll *ny*, in his decroe, they did not intend dose; and yet they now come into Cuurt and say that what was chars upon thom was truo; that what they declared, was .ot true; and iii although tliey induced the Chancellor to deere? to tl. :ontrnry, tin > tl intend to do what was alleged ; wbut they denied; nnd what the Chancel! said they did not intend. in that caso reported ia IS Richardson, the Ch nocllor soys, In exprt tarins: " Tho corporate rights ol tho plaintiffs, dori ved by the chart*, will not bo invaded by th? projected road of the defendants." Yet yo Honors have listened io labored argument to prove that they did Intend to invade ; thnt they had tho right so to invade ; nnd that tho Court nfl!rm such right. To this bold assumption ono of your Donors 1ms aire idy ^iv Tebuke : \v*liich, ii* it has been unheeded, inny now with great propriety repeated. .'An examination of tho case, cays Mr. Justice Willard, " in conjun " tion with tho pleadings in tho case, shows that tho exact questions dra\ "in issue in that caso, were-first, ihe right cf tho d?fendants to co nue " Columbia and Hamburg by a railroad; second, the right to connect Ora *. Itoville uud Hamburg by such means of communication ; ?nd third, tin " right to cross complainants' track near Cullimbin. The nocessity or rig "of laying defendants' right of way over that of tho complainants, or ov "any lands controlled by them, except a? involved in tho right ot" CTOSsii 11 complainants' unck immr Uolumbia, v/ns not presented in the pleadinj W?fr _^_. - __, f^. Mr??o Court. "Wh??e tho gouoral location of thc defend PP? bearing* upon tho complainants' claim to an oxc'usivc BW?? considered, its procioo and dotinito location, us interfering Hr?eir proprietary rights, doga not 'appear to have ben boforo tin. ^PW?rt, except in in? relation to the crossing near Columbia." i And so it ia. No othor question was raised than a's ?tated by Judge Willard in bis synopsis of tho cuso. "Whore, then, in their charter, is tho powor of tho Columbia and Augusta Railroad-Company to enter upon its present claim? No where, and it never did venture to make that claim I until the paysage of tho Act of 1808, and tho particular section eight to w inch I have so often adverted. "We have now reached a stage of tho argumeut whore it appears estab? lished beyond succeasful'contradiction, that there lias been no adjudication hy any Court of the question of proprietary right as between those corpo? rations : that it is still open and undecided ; "that the presumptions of a right in the Columbia aud Augusta Railroad Company to invade the proprietary i'lgl'ta of the South Carolina Railroad Company, are not sustained by tho cxprots language of the Legislature or any implication ? but, notwith standiu ; this, that these rights have been* drawn in question in other Courts wit le mt being there decided ; and because of their failure to exercise proper jurisdiction,"ure now likely to be lost, unless this Court arrests all further proceedings by prohibition, und brings the caso back to its proper position. I have brought beforo tho Court tho charter of the Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company; t ie admissions of that corporation ; and thc Act No. 42. I will now proceed to show vou what has Ven adjudged in cases of acknowledged authority,"in which like question? have arisen. In the case of the White Uiver Turnpike C?mpany es. Vermont Central Railroad Company, (America: Railway Cases, 1, 238; 21 Vermont lt., G90:J " D?fendants1 Act ot incorporation docs not in terms empower them to lav "out their road along, etc., but to construct it from some point ? * * * " to a point. * *. * * BlU 'I not being shown tba' there was any othci "practicable route,*or that the mule adopted waa unsuitable or improper, tv? " tili uk it is to be taken t hut tiie road was properly localed in the valley o " White River ; and from tho evidonco it must also bo taken that it was " located in the proper place in that valley, unless its location has invade* "(he legal lights o' the plaintiff." (Tho question hore was of a highway tho charter having given a right " to cross any stream, road or way,1 etc., aud powor to the company to construct their road across or upon tin same.) And ihe Court then added that which would seem too plain fo argument,hut which in this cine has been unheeded, tltat "some tribunal ii a question of fight must necessarily be provided." In the caso of the Boston Water Power Companv vs. Relton and Wor cc-ter Railroad Company. (1 Amer. R. cases, 298, 23 Pick. R., 860, p. S'J8. " Supposing tho Legislature has a fu'1 and constitutional authority to pas " an Act empowering defendants to lay out their railroad over the hm " used by plaintiffs, have they in fae: granted the power? This must dc " pond upon tito construct iou of tho Act of incorporation applied to t tl " subject mittor both of the contemplated railroad and the existing works a " the pintnt?li's. It is, therefore, a question bearing upon the presumed cs " tent of thc Legislature, lt may bj fairly argued that though there is n " limitation ol' thc powor of the corporation in terms, still, if th'- Legi: u tature hail already appropriated a jiortion of the lands lying hftween (li lt termini to another important public use ; and especially if the constru? .. lion contended for, would \v h ol Iv or in u groat degree, dole: " snell other important public use, it is not to be presumed that the Lcgii " latino meant tim- to extend the power, and so a limitation might bo ei " grafted by reasonable and necessary implication upon thc generality < " tho Act. P. y-2'.>: "So if ? power were given in general termo to lay out a turnpil " or railroad between tenn-ni definitely expressed, such general powi " ougat inn to be so construed as to take un arsenal fort, ?tate house < " land already appropriated to a highly important public use, which won "be defeated by such construction. It would be a question of l?gislatif " intont, and it could not be presumed that tho Legislature intended th ?. tho powor conferred by them srieuld have such an effect, unless it wc .. unequivocally expressed." .fo liiiiie eas.? of tho inhabitants ol'Springfield vs. Connecticut Riv Railroad Company (i American R. cases, 672, 4 dish. R., 08:) MAs i .. company or p . jns lan e authoi itv to lay out a railroud, except so far " snell power i? conferred by tho Legislature, the Court uro ol' opinion th " by a grunt of power by a legislative act to lay out a railroad betwei " certain termini, w'.iero the precise course and direction arc not proscrib? " but left to thc corporation-to I"- 1. catcd between the termini, no nuthori " is given prim i/acte to hiv such railroud on and along an existing pub! .' highway, longitudinally ; or, in oilier words, to take the roadbed of su " highway as thc track oi their railway; * * * ? * the two usos a .. almost,"if not wholly inconsistent with each other. * * * * Had .. tv.a int r.Jed that railroad companies, under u genera!grant should ha -' power to lay n railroad over n highway longitudinally, which ordinari .. ?s r... : necc -.cy, wo think that would have been done in express tern .. Accompanied with full legislativo provisions for maintaining such bi " riers and modes o'." separulion ?i- would tend to make the usc of th?* sai .. toad for both mod ..- of travel, consistent with the safety of tho travelli " on both. Tho absence of any such provision adonis a strong inferei " that under gcuotui toui?, it wai not intended such a power should .. given.' Again nt p. ?~'J ? ' But winn it is tho intention ot tho Legislature " grant a power to take land aliea?u appropriated to another public t< .. such intontion must bo shown ly cypress nords or by necessary impli " r-'y/i." So al page 680: .. In thc; present case it is manifest that there aro .. words in the Act which give the defendants uuthority. * * * If tl " have thc power, it must arise from tho application of tho Act to: .- subject matter, so that the railroad could not by reasonable intendm .. be laid on any other line. 1 n * if, to the minds of reasonable li ?- conversant with the subject, another line could have been udopted "tween the termini -.viii.om taking the highway, reasonably sufficient "accommodate ail the interests concerned, and to accomplish the obj?: .. tor v.Lien thc grant was mude, then there was r.o such necessity as 0 warrant tho pruuijiptiun that tho Lcji-lature intended to authorize .. taking of tho highway." So ut p. ?S(J : " Whether the laying cf this railroad over Front stn el \ " necessary-that i-, roasonably necessary, order u> accomplish the obj " contemplated Ly thc Legislature depends upon the application ol' the . io the localities ; and this warrants and requires evidence to establish "facts." (In this case it was referred lo three commissioners of skill i experience lo report.; Again, in Thatcher rs. Dartmouth Bridge, (18 Pickering R., 601:) ' corporation i^ not authorized lo take private property without thoconsen the owner unless ii appears ly express words oi necessary implication. *s not to bc presumed that such a power was intended to bo granted un thc intent toelu so can be clearly discovered in tho Act itself." Vour Honors clearly see how, with any regard to the precedents thus tablishcd, Judge Platt and Judge Boozer had within their power the nd lion of proceedings which would secure all rights of all parties: w out prejudice to any. ia the ease A: the Kemp. v.i. thc London ; Brighton Railroad Company, 1 Lug. R and C. cases, at p. CT 1, Lord Chancelier says: "My only duty is to ascertain what uro thole und equitable rights of the parties. I um not called upon to point or. Ihe com pu uv the most convenient mode oi executing thu works und exer ing the powers which tue Act of I'urliument h;.s sanctioned, it appear me that tho situation in which the V. Chancellor's order leaves thc mn is most injurious to both parties: Tor instance the company aro tuft in dark us to what may bo the construction of their parliamentary powers, they may go on mid finish the new road according to their own views of Act, and incur all ila? necessary expenso, without, any clue or notion whet when it is linisi.ed, it will bc u sufficient substitution for the old road, the other hand, tho plaiii??' may then timi that ?t is not in Iiis powe apply for the intervention of the Court in sufficient time to raise the q lion whether be or is not entitled to the protection of the Court. WI ever the company are in a condition to deal with the present road, their ceodings will, no doubt, be io rapid, that before tins Court could inter] the road will have li st its Original character, ami be in a state rendel in . impossible to restore it io its original condition. * * * I um told there arc other nudes of proceeding -ollie] remedies which the plaintiff : adopt, and therefore it ir submitted to me that this Court ought to rcfui exercise its jurisdiction. Now 1 consider that there cannot be a mora us ' exercise cf thc jurisdiction of the Court than in interfering to ascertain lights between parties circumstanced as in this case. 1 look ut thee powers which are necessarily given io these companies: the variety ol terosts with which tho>o powers may interfere, if not stri?tly oxen according to the provisions of thc Act: the necessity of immediate inte sinon: tho injury to both parties if there be not a jurisdiction consta open by which their respective rights may be ascertained ; and tin appears tome that this is, of all others,a situution of tilings in which Court ought lo exercise that jurisdiction. * * The course 1 have ab adopted in casi s where tho question turns upon n legal righi, is to put parties in a situation t? try as quickly aa possible that legal right ; und to pt Ibo property to bo affected until tho legal tight bo ascertained. * ' Ibu , power, and If I hal I should not exoroUo it, to deprive one party ot' wbut entitle 1 to, bcouuso it ?-J ino invenient io another party. The company may or aol bavc taken pr0|>er measures U> secura to themselves these powers wine necessary for the su-it o of convenience in carrying their works into cilvet. if they not. it in their misfortune. These companies procuro nuipla powers to bc ''esl apon them, but it not un frequently happens that in tue ooursa of new works Sud they Lave not powors suliioient tor perfecting uJl they contemplated. Wbci , ii? thu ease they unist caber multe what bargain they can willi the persons i rights aro ndvorso to them; or they must apply again to Parliament to havo powers enlarged. Ide not ?sit iu this Court to enlarge those powers, ina to Loth parties within tho limits which the Legislature hus prescribed." So too iu Webb r?. Tho Manchester and heeds lt. R. Co., 1 Enif. C. and lt. ens ? -13'J. Tho Lord Cbunosllor says: "It is extremely important to watch over ti tcrcsts of those whose property is affcotod by these companies, to take caro th company shall not, by r-nj misrepresentation they may make, (if they bare - tiny.? he permitted lo exorciso powers beyond thone which the Act of I'nrlii gr.e-; th an. Tho powers given to these companion mo -o huge ami frcqueu . injurious to tho inter? its ot Individuals, that 1 think it is ibo duty of evorj C<> koop them most strictly within Ibose powers: and if thora he any reasonable , ts to tho extent cf their powors, ikey must go olsewhere und get enlarged po but they will ge' nono from me. by woy of oom tr not ion of the Aot." t With a very slight variation ol terms and no chango whatever in spirit, thc Chancellor there recognised the hume Condition <>f things which exists here. ] the same way that the Colum>>ia mel Augusta Kuilroini Company, while waitio dooision of the Chancellor, determined to cross tho track ut Columbia; iu thc way th.it while thc motion for Injunction "us pending before .Mr. Justice W ! they Increased their foros and pressed forward their undertaking ; ?o will tia 1 polution continuo lo operate; and if protection is not given to thoso rights 1 aro now presented liefere your Ilonoi*. clear, positive und well defined bylaw; . thc lime comes in which they aro to ho established, ns they must be. by the de I of some Court of competent jurisdiction, they will not ho woith tba breath wa? . tbif* argument. Whon your Honors aro told that delays aro sought by us for tho purpose of 1 I off this enterprise iu its very cradle-where ie tho proof? L)id wo not prey Platt to order a jury nt the earliest mo meut ?or tho trial of the caso? llave \ I p?ked to bc allowed to come to n trial before Judge Boozer on thc merits of thc and lot tho controversy bu settled? How have WO l>c.eu tuet? On the motion ' Judge Willard for a preliminary Injunction, bc overruled tho plea in bar Into ' by lbs Columbia ami Augusta Railroad Company: but tba plea in bar mill i upon tho record. When wc go beforo Judge Boozer, it is urged upou him th i question is not to bo decided upon its merits, Lut upon lb? effect of tho order of Platt; rejecting from that order every qualification which Judgo Platt had in: If, upon tuc hoai.ngof thc bill, the pica shall bo overruled, then will corni to answer; and thut?U is that mouth* must elapse befoie tho merits of thc on ho heard. In the meanwhile tho C."ts allow Ibo wurt: to go on, and wo are cl with impelling, and in a captious Spirit, the progiess of tho work, w hilo tho been no impediment which ingenuity can suggest, that hus not been iuterpe give timo to thli corporation lo complete thc work ot construction, and cscap ' tho discussion and decision of i's right to have what it claims. What did the Lord Cbanoollor do in tho cuso of tho Loudon and Brighton Ii: Company? " .My predecessors havo ostabliMicd (be said) the authority of thu to intorforo in those oases, and I certainly feel it my duty not to repudiate a diet iou, tho e&erclso of which I believe to .6? most essential Ut iii? interest* oi ?ho numberless pet som? who uro in somo way or other affected by these great work?, which aro nov; so universally being carried on throughout tho country. 1 have only, therefore, lo ecuador wb:\t aro tho legal and equitabYo rights of the partios." Your Honors seo in the papers boforo you how this conrso submitted to Judge lloozor, well and wisely to ad o nt wu? H*lil?>r?,??iy Ignored-rtho prooedent, in like oases, of the ablest Judges in tho United Statoo and Uroat Britain, not in tho slight? est dooroo regarded; and by his dissolution of tho injunction granted by Mr. J. Wil? lard, this corporation I* now occupying soil, their right to willah lins tiot I -cn deter? mined. Tho ordor of Mr. Justice Willard, grnutod upon a full view of the ouse, and after consideration of tho large questions of equity and legal rights involved, has been interpreted by Judgo Rooter, and most improperly so, ns couti ned to a narrow, isolated, single point: and hy innkiug the proceedings in Aiken nud proceedings be? fore him dovetail with each other, in n manner that wo are bound to believe could never huve been intended by Judge Platt, because plainly contradicted by tho lan? guage of Judgo Platt; a result has been attained that could not have been ranched by a fair application of legal principle? to all the questions between these corpora? tions by any othor tribuoalln the State. In tnis connection, I cannot. pass over tv cuco wbioh I submitted to .Mr. Jus tic: Willard in the argument beforo bim, and which really puts tho runtier at issue so strongly before the Court, and presents so plainly tho proper conduct of all Couus in like case;-that comment ls unnecessary. I Nier to the case of the Man? chester R. Company vs. the Ureat Northern R. Company, reported in 12 English Law and Equity Reports, p. 210. In that case two Acts of Parliamout gave two different companies thc right to purchase compulsorily the same plat, of land. The company junior in date, obtained the land and built (heir road. The company Senior in date claimed its light, and gavo notice of their intoution to surnmou u jury to usssos.-t the purchase money und compensation for the laud in questiou. Upon application to thc V. Chancellor, an injunction was ordered until the opinion of a Court of Law could bc hud upou a question of law "of no littlo consequence: what ?3 the otl'ect ol two Act: ol' Parliament i elating to a special subject and conferring thc same ri^ht on different parties ?" " " " It ia no light matter to chango or Interfere with tho legal possession in n case of this nature." The same quesliou is in this casa. Hore also arc conflicting claim s under au Act of the L?gislature. Hereis ana "change," and ti claim to interfere with " thc legal possession." But it is considered a " light matter.' May it piense your Honor", a care cannot bo found where a railroad or any othci corporation ha; been authorize! to proceed with it? work pending thc question whether it had a right to do so. The counsel on the othor sida say they do not ask your Honor- to do anything only that ihoy may not bo restrained from finishing their road, and they will eu counter all the peril. Why it is the first time in my knowledge since thc ptopositiot was made to the Lord Chancellor of Euglund und rebuked by him, that in a oas? before a bench of Judges; bc foi? .the question of legal rights ls determined j thej should wink ut a trespass: by negation empower a corporation to ?jo towoi:: upoi tho land of another: and reserve thc decision us to its right to do so until somi future time. The. proposition then was considered to deserve tho rebuke which i received. Rut I come to the last point I intend to make before your Honors, and tiiat is tba without n show of legal authority, these proceedings have reached a stage where th rights of tho South Carolina Railroad Company arc not only endangered, but may b . lost, unless this Court interferes and protects them. A Jury hn3 been impunellcd un I der an order most extraordinary, because most unquestionably in direct coudie I with Mic constitution. In Act ?2, Section 3, the constitution dcclaies, "no right c way shall bc appropriated to the uso of any corporation until full compensatio! therefor shall be first made, . * which compensation shall bc ascertained by jury of twelve men, in ci C'o;;rt of Record, os shall bc prescribed by law." Has thi compensation been so n-.'ertaincd? Was Judge Platt in his (."hambers, a Court c Record? Was the jury as impanelled a Court of Record? Is the constitution law? By a jury of twelve men, not "in a Court of Record," drawn by order of Jud^ Platt, In Chambers, by tho Clerk of thc Court iu vacation, an amount of cotnpenst tion hus been assessed. And this is said to bo according to law ! What will bo the result unless there ?3 an interference by your Honors? Tho Ai says "that upou the payment of tho compensation thus ascertained by a jury, tl '. right of way over said lands, or thc use of said lands for the purposes for whic " tho same were required, ::hall vest in the person or corporation who shall hold tl "charter Of such highway so long ns the same shall be used for such highway an "no longer: but the fee iu such lauds subject to such special uses, shall remain i " the owner thereof, and nothing herein contained shall be construed to confer upc " suoh person or corpoia?ou auy right in or power over tho lauds so eondotaue .. o'her than such as may be within the particular purpose for which such lan ls we .* condemned." Ii, so far as they huve gone, these proceedings arc in conformity with the laws South Carolina, then the right which these parties elalui has already been vested Ibo Columbia au.I Augusta Railroad Company. And there is no deuying this co: elusion uuloss they can bo reached by tho supervisory power of this Cour unless ihe authority of this tribunal is applied to the very foundation of this pr cte ling ; and by the correction of it protect the right* of the South Carolina Railroi Company; until tho divestiture thereof in the language of .Mr. J. Willard is "und the sanction of n Judicial act." Judge Willard-Can you not reach it by a writ of error? Mr. Magrath-Not so. .The writ of error is from whu; : S^i iL? question legal right; but tho compensation. Section four of the Act No :12, says: "Th ?. fi om ino verdict so rendered, it shall bc the right of either pntiy to appeal to t ?. first term of the Circuit Court next ensuing in the county giving to thcoppo* "party fifteen days notice of such intended appeal, with the grounds thereof, a: .. upon the hearing of such appeal, if the Court shall be satisfied of the reasonal .. sufficiency of the grounds, an issue shall be ordorcd in which the appellant sh "bo the actor, and the question of compensation shall be thereupon submitted t< .?jury in open Court, whoso verdict shall be bi.ai and conclusive, unless ou w .. ol orror, u ne." trial shall be ordered by tho .Supreme Court.'' The writ oft ??ol' allowed by the Act, is not from the asscssiucut of cornpensalii made by the jury, drawn un.ter the order of Judge Platt. From that jury, ati aiipi is given to the first term next finning: and if the Court, I suppose by that I- un : thc Judge, shall be of the sufficiency of the grounde, an issue shall be order, and auotbei iii.tl shall be hod. lt is fr?.m the verdict in this second trlnl, ihn writ of error in piovlded. but If tho Judge chooses not to be satisfied, there is ' second trial, and therefore BO writ of error Judge Willard-Bul it they should linisn construction they could not run ^ !.. motive upon tho road. Use and construction aro two different things. , Mr. Magrath-The id^a that the Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company cit! i caunot, or will uoi ian a locomotive whenever the la;t iud may bc laid : cr tli.i* tl would ec enjoined by Judge Poorer; ir, very unfounded. Too counsel on the oi ?dc would not take th.' trouble to come to Columbia and argue such -t question. Th i..- no authority to bo lound that if they have n right to construct tho road, they eau run their trains upon lt. And if they are able to occupy the right of way et* South Caroliua Railroad Company, without show of right, under tho circumstance: tiiis case, andcou?truot thereon, the roadbed; it would bo difficult to know iu w ' Court they would bc enjoined :':om running their ca.s. For they cannot couat, unless they have the right j the Act discrimin?tes between .in entry for location"*') an entry for the purpose of construction ; and determines that construotion lull' tempe. n, aud compensation is supposed to iuolude the legal right. Put ii" i meant t?: i! after the Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company has com;.iel tl roudbc I, that this Court will consider whether it can then run itv trains, aol e p p'v can o: made than was given by the Lord Chancellor of En?laud, and to wL I Lave already referred. lire Chief Justice-How was it imJ.'i thc former statute 2 Didnoi a corporal haven right to go on and run a locomotive? Mr. Magrath-If the corporation hod tho right to build (he road ; its right to it J train has never been questioned. Judge Willard-A railroad company, as I understand it, hud a right to enter u the land without proceeding. It was then in tho power of either party to asccri the compensation and have ii adjudged. Mr. Magrath-Under thc oharter of all these railrouds, ii iva? at nr-t held, i they could enter ni pleasure; subject only to the obligation to make compensai The mischief of such a rule was foryears, the subject of a struggle in tuc Cou until it wi ! set aside in Blake's caso; and that case has since been recognized r. law. In that case, Judge Wardlaw speaking for tho Court, says that "the mere scrtion of tho company, thot a parcel is required," is not conclusive; it not con sive, " there uiu^i bc some 11 iu 1 ;" that ?. pay meut of adequate compensation ii far f justifying thc taking of land without consent of the owner in an improper oase ;" that ii the .. laudowuer should not traverse thc propriety of the occasion, (for thc tcrfcreuec of thc Court in ihe summary proceedings,) "or its existence, these ma: will be- admittc '. a ? alleged ; bul il he should traverse, a preliminary trial and d=.;i by the Cou.i must be Lad." lle-rc we have made a traverse. Thc Court in South Carolina has ?a.d. in such .. ti nil and decision by the Court must bo had." The trial and deeision we have ai for. Thc tuai is denied ; the deoision evaded Thii .vas Blake's case ; und the rule wu3 established wbioh should be follower chi? case, to wit : that whore tho patties whose property was sought to be acquire ' a company, traversed ihe occasion for thc application to the Court for its ii tereuce that was a preliminary question which had t<. be settled, nud the partiel c not go on until thc decision was made. lu tho e.'.'o cf Blake it was wedl said : " Thc Court owes il to itst.it then to look t. propriety of the coca :'on for exercising the special duties committed to it, whan . propriety is denied; not rashly to ussuine as true what is denied, or us incoi vertible what might well bo tried; nor by considering those duties ministerial w may well call forth judicial functions, to subject all that it does ty injunction implied reproof, bccousAit will not itself make those investigations which pa muy procuro to be elsewhere made." 1 know that elsewhere, and indeed beforo this Court, tho ingenuity of counsel ' been taxed to give to this plain language, this wholesome rule, u construction th 1 not warranted by its terms or its spirit. But such an effort requires no reply. safer for thc oounsel on the other side to ignore it ultogether, than attempt to pre : us application bj un ctl'ort to obicure its meaning. Your Honors will tin I that If tho construction which Judge Wardlaw says i i correct bo iusistoU ou as notwithstanding still thc law ol' this State, thu: also rales that prohibition is a mode by which the question can ba heard. Act \ i;ig tj ikr>ca.-e lu Blake, prohibition is a proceeding which this Court has pow adopt. But if your Honors -.'.ru prepared te? say that all that hus been done has 1 piop. riv done, then prohil ition ij not our remedy, and Blake's case is not law 'lhere are throo modes by which this question of right when it arises, whenever i: does nriso it ia essential, may bo decided : first, by proceedings itt'. > according tithe iule followed in 13 Richardson, and where the Chancellor hil [ entcrtaius jurisdiction ol' the question: secondly, where tho Chancellor follow > example of tho Lord Chancellor of Euglund and direct an i^sue to be made s Court of law for tli<* purpose of determining the legal question : or thirdly, wber Judge luav do what according to tho case ol" Blake, tho Circuit Judge beforo v ?. thc application is made has tho power to do. Now, if we could have induced J ; Pl itt to order thia care to be tried before a jury, 1 undertake lo say without h( 1 tion '.hat th" whole Issue "ould have been decided without delay. The counsi ihe other side .o nie I his power tn make any such issue, aud he yioldod to the ? ! meut that he could d;\?.st a light, but could not try the question whether he ha - right to do so. i Judge Willard-Tho difficulty seems to have arisen from drawing oil tue cqtli H...tieri into a different. Court from the? legal matters. Mr. Magrath-Tho equitable matters and tho legal matters were in difl Courts, but iu thc same jurisdiction: both wero in the Circuit Courts oi State : and if tho bill for injunction was filed and properly Hied in Riol s Com.tv, whero tire; Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company had its plu< business: what difficulty could bo occasioned bee.tu.se thc Columbia and Au ' Railroad? impany Died'a petition lu Edgotleld or Barnwell County ? If the J i in E'lgerk'd or Barnwell was asked to forfeit a righi, which the Judgo in Rici ) \.us then trying, or rather was supposed t>> be bound in ihe opinion Of tho Jot! i L i -, acid or Barnwell to try and doclde; was ho not bound by comity as well i ; law, to wait then the result of that trial boforc he would condemn? Was it i nil intents find purposes tho same OS if he had Loth motions beforo himself? D 1 Jud". -- take notice of proceedings in tho Courts of each othei ? When these 1 ecediugs relaie t.? Hie samo matter aro they not hound to do so? And if, as J - Platt says, his proceedings wore lo depend on Judgo Boozer's trinl of all tho j lions in "thc case, then should not his proceedings wait for that trial and deo! , jjut i have already shown how Judge i'latt condemns, professing to wait for ? Boozer's decision ol his rignt lo do so: and Judgo Booser finds in the condcmi 1 ot J uilge Platt the decision of tho right, which was referred to him. Judge 1 decides because Judgo Boozor is to d?cide: anti Judge boozer decides been USO . 1 Platt has already decided. Judge Plait says my opinion i* part of uiy order 1 Judge Booz'oi holds tUui ihe opinion is no pai l ol the order, although lt i pressly declared. When Mr. Ju-iico Willard mado his ordor for un (njunotion In this case i... '. the defendants leavo "to laovo for dissolution," "at any time balure the bc t of the ease : on pro^f that they have duly acquired a light to enter for tho purp ? construction upon the premises claimed by tho complainants." And Judge l 5 mles ihat because Judge Platt has given un order for a jury to assess compens ? therefore the Coiuinoia and Augusta Railroad Company have duly acquired j right to enter :*' although Judge Platt declared, that "after petitioners shall , ascertained thc quantum O? compensation nnd have paid or tendered it ; . mutt necessarily go back to tho Court of Equity to get the injunction lcmovcd beforo they can" ask its removal, thoy must show not only that they havo ten j the compensation, but that they have acquired tho right " * . "Their t i c indy now pending on ihe equity side of tho Court of Common Pleas of Kio I Count*, embraces tue whole isiue as to . tight.' and every point must ncecssar I adjudicated upen when they apply for leave to proceed with their road." Ni i guage can bo more plain : nud words aro worse than wasted in comment. But i lioiu the fact that the bill filed in Richland T?.strict was a difficulty with Plait in his consideration of tho petition for a jury to assess compensation in t field - it did not in any wiso interioro with tho power ho had: and rer.ily sugi i the duty, as I submit which under tho circumstances waa or should have . imperative; to direct upon tho petition of tho Columbia and Augusta Ra . "inp ..<>>. Mil 'iho rvturn aud answer of tho South Carolin? Railiond Company : an issue to bo mudo up botwoon thcso two oorporatious at. (be ensuing term of tbo Court, for tho trial of thc question of tho right of tho Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company, to have what it is claimed. And whoa Mr. Justice Willard, in his order, refers to tho duly acquiring a righd boforo the bearing of tho "aso bj Judgo Boozer: it bj ?noll a proceeding that ho bsd in bis mind, lor this Judg* . Platt had ampio authority. Act No. 07, passed 20th September, 1868, declare* that "it shall be compotent for any Judgo of Ibo ClrOUi! Court, upon reasonable notice to tho parties In tho dork'; of floo or at Chamber?, bud In vocation nt well a* In Xena, to. make, .iiioct and AT.U,.; ,.S such pruess, uotuuibuiona aud Intorlocutory orders, rules and other proceedings, * whenever tho arno are not grantable of course according t?? the rule? and prudi.i tho Court." Judgo Willard- That Ima relation to ucttous at law. Mr. Magrath-And this whole proceeding involved thut. It was u petition id- ? L dressed to thc Judge,_asking the Court to do tv certain thing. Wai bu without power ? ta satisfy him'elf as to his right? Was it different in fam front a motion made lo ??.; arres; und set aside a Judgment because of fraud or uuy other matter; aud do?3 uuy one doubt thal upon such au issue it would not be In tho power of Judgo Platt ij order an issue to'try the question ? When wo said to him, therefore, it is comp?tent for -* y your Honorio retuin this petition until tho noxt term of your Court, then near at baud, and order an issue upon the questions raised by tbs petition, wer* wa ouisld,? of tho law? Wore wu introducing any novel practice or requiting anything un reosonable? Y'et the application was stoutly resisted, and the argument pressed upon Judge Platt that no was acting in a purdy ministerial capacity, aud ba j nothing whatever to do with this matter except to write his name at tho end oi the order. Doubtless he yiolded lo the pressure upon bim not to disregard e.-n sideratlona addressed to bim with such urgency and earnestness. It must be obvlou? to any ono who read? bis decision or who was before Judgo Platt in tb? various disputations in this matter, that bc then intended aotbiug moro than to put tho Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company in such a condition that if they did establish their legal rights they would bo subject to no fuither interruption o'r delay. Nor did he then intend by unythiug he said or did to prejudge thc question against the South Carolina Railroad. Unfortunately tho remit ha3 been different. The Columbia aDd Augusta Railror J Company havo treated that order of Judgo Platt In a mauue;- which I am boa;.d to suppose be did not anticipate And I trust they nevar could har? obtained it, had they declared to bini that lt would be us it has baeu made, of Itself, foundatiou for a motion before Judge Boozer, to dis??ive tho injunction; aaid this accomplished they would then preis on :he work of construction leaving ail qu otion} of right to bo determined, when-p< ihapa after the completion of then enterprise'-it would bu idlo to discuss them*. May it plea JO your Honoi ?, I did not Intend to Ue?aaaa so muck on toe timo ot the Court,but voa r.ro awaio that large iulerosts aro iuvolvod in th? ouse' 'jut ev'jzi larder ?3 the value of tho legal principals which are to be inalnlaib?d 0j r/elcotod Lu a cn:;, in all reaps:"ts so important we wero bouud fully to present foryourcon sidcratlon thc p .duts upon which wo rely. CHARLOTTE A?fD SOUTH CAROLINA RAXL-OAD Ce:.:?._;?-,. 1 Presidente Oj/ice, Columbia, S. C., 0<.tolc- 21 ',1803 W. J. MAGKATU, Eiq . . President South Carolina Railroud Cjn.paity, CharUtton, S- e" Detr. 3m: I wrote to you mvre than o fortnight singe proposing certain terms foi thc use of tho track of the South Carolina Railroad from GrnuitcviLla to Augusta In your acknowledgment of this letter you state that you do not believe tho Execu? tive Committee will acccod to the terms proposed, ihe Columbia an 1 Augusta Railroad Company will soou be running iu trains to GranitevUle, and in Its behalt now offer to pay to thc South Carolina Railroad Company all tb? receipts of ?ts rain? between O rani to ville and Augusta, and rice versa from fruiguta anJ pasaos jora for the uss of its truck between those points-the South Carolina Rn Urea J Co:n pauy famishing tba necessary wood aud water. Very respectfully, WM. JOHNSTON, President. CHAJILESTOJC, October 2; J, HS.; Mr. V.". J. MAGRATH, Preside:.! South Carolina Railroad: DEAR SIR: I cannot s>.e that Air. Johnston otho s this company .IL. ^u.u.j more thau they uow have, and this doe; not amouut to one-third of tho interest of ti.: cost of thc track between Graniteville und Augusta, saying nothing . i the privileges of crossing the Savannah River and connecting tracks in Augusta. Nothing ia acid in th?3 paper of the sohoduks tho Columbia and Augusta Railroud Compan propose 'o run. I tbiuk it would bo much bcttei for us t<> tum our traok ovti t".? 'hem it' they Will keep it up and furnish ua with wood and renter, tts ucl give them ell thu earnings between Graniteville and.Augusta. Very cespeotfttlly, U. T. PEAKE. Gen? ul Hupt Jo.-. [COPY.] CHJJIUSTCO*, -iib October, Isoc. W i. JOHNSTON, AV,. President ? Dn.vn ?IP. Your letter of 21st Instant, submitting for tte consideration -i tini company certaiu proposals for tho use of their track, property and privileges between their Graniteville station aud the Cit}' ct Augusta, and ir. wLe Ir.ttei place, hus been laid before thc Executive Committee. Your previous oouiruuuication was acted on at a session, on Wednesday last, the Board of Directors. Their r>n:wei, through the ?eeietary,. is dcui *'..; = with now. Tho committee feel constrained to decline again tU's; fas three days >.g-? the h...T? of Directors felt compelled to declines somewhat -imitar proposition, on the gi .. ...a of utter insufficiency. And herc this reply might end. but ii hat- come to ibo knowledge of the Board that :iu|ji<.rsivns ii. some extent prevail that the Columbia aud Augusto Railroad dm puu) have frequently and persistently approached them with fui: and reasonable proposals foi thc use and enjoymcut of their raluublc and costly propel U and privi ictfvj obii.c itteirod to, aud th>-y regard ibis as a propor oooauon foi ti.-, conc-etiJL ult suck erroneous impressions. The Board deny that they have at aa h.eu approached v.ith any proposals-that could be regarded fair oi reasonable, such ia a body representing valuable interests could for a moment entertain. What ha?e beca the proposals of the Columbia and Augusta Railroad? What is tho ons thut oii?iunUs thia corrospondenoo?-and thic, at ?eas;, may bs 6aii cf it, it ii thc most reasonable yet received. What, wo repeat, is their last proposition ? Nothing ui'.ire <. r lesa than to obtain from the South Carolina Railroad thc free usa ana enjoyment of about (12) twelve mii?a ot their track, an expensive bridge. und land in the Jity of Augusta., tho privileges alon* connected with which were only obtained from tho City of Augusta at a cc?t of $2?0,UUO ! And what is offered in compensation therefor? Absolutely nothing. 'ibo Columbia and Augusta Company, for these valuable properties and privileges, imply proposa to give to ihe South Carolina R&iUoad company vie. caru? al , . flections* :i-;ui freight and passage of their <;wn trains between Graniteville auit Augusta. And what are those earnings? N'ot such proportion of tho entire arning*: of that company u! would be indicated by the roiatiou which ino ditta'nc*. jctween Graniteville and Augusta bears to the whole length of tue Uno bctwooi. mi iviUe and Columbia, but simply such portiou of the business 'uow done ici reen the two points in question by the trains of the South Curoiina Railroad rithout ibo h^ip v-f tho Columbia and Augustu Road, ?3 might find its way Into [ruins oi ibo Columbia and Augusta Road. Can this be caliea a reasonabia iropoid. But ii.e;>. u another MOW iu whiob this matter should be regarded. Under ?uct* .. mgcmanl v.hut is the direct immediate gain to the Columbia and Augusta Rf ad? T uio : that company is caved tho construction ot twoi.-t miies of road tough country . thc construction o? u l<-ug and costly bridge, and, to some lcm, the purchase of mud lu Augusto; expense of depots; in i word, the expendi? ture of at least $950,000. this mm al ^e\>.ii pei cent, will entail upon the Columbia aud Au??;::S bom pany nn annual cbaige for interest aloue of about S25,000, and ire mi?-b: jujtiy add J., uv; -li.r.n e even on tho 0 large figures for wem ?iud tear on rails,, etc. k'i I lui it : ?.i-1 oooipauj i- offered ?omo-lt is difficult to nay what-portion oi ihcw ?wu ba .'. n busluess built up by them, und which, lo say the least, it Las as ??oe-j ubiii ? vi rclainluy ns the Columbia and Augusta Railroad Company has oi uking iway from them-for it is not rt. be supposed that this company will quietly sit jT.ii au-.t allow ?ts interests to be transferred to a competitor witboat such effe-rts a; -ada make success profitless. Now t, put an cud to ihe iiaUmtuiT out ^i which have spruLig the impressions rt f< rred to in thc commencement ot' this letter; and to test th? sincerity ot th? Colum? bia arel Augusta Railroad in connection with arrangemeLta ut Oranlteriilo, this corni any, having yieidod opposition between Columbia and (iranitevUle, but retain ma at.i Intendiug lo maintain opposition to the construction of a railroad botween Grauitevlllc and Augusta, and under its agreement with the City of Augusta to its entry therein-believing such road not only a gross violation of their ekaiter, but t. . result lu i;.---t injury to tho interests of Charleston-pioposcs to submit the entir? I question ol the connection at e) rani te ville, use of track and privileges, terms and con ditioni of carno, lo a joint committee, to consiat ol three Directora of each of tljo tw-j coui]>a:iivS. to meet ut earliest day praotioablo alter ?ho acceptance of thia proposai, the said committee to have lull ?>uwera from both roads to treat of all matters ai issue in this connection. Representing, as the Board does, a very larga pecuniary investment, tbs prop'.i ty i I of a great number of individuals, who cannot be reached without difficulty and delay proceedings in the direction of this suggestion, it is evident, must bc conducted with serup-lous regard to tho interests of thu stoc*kboldcrs. Very respectfully, (Signed) '.> W/J. MAGRATH, Prindin >.?I.I.;.LU?<?: AND Sot'ru CAROLINA R^.;i.r.oAjj CO:;?AJ?Y; Prciidtufi Ojfiett, Columbia, S. CV Nottmbtt 9th, ic'-: VV. T. \ yr E*<?., Prcttid?ut ?outk Carolina Rail'Stad Company ? i. SIB: louriuvor dated Ootobtr 21tb, 160S, was received Thursday last bj me il Chark .; -a copy of your communication waa firat seen on tie a3 a portion of your affidavit in thc case now pendiug in Ccurloaton. Differing entirely from : rtu.et.on of my last lotter, und as to tho extent and value of thc considera oll rred roar company in the various propositions submitted, alss as to tho ex ... ,, ? its' aud franchises claimed for tho South Carolina Railroad Company, and dissenting entirely as to tho cost of constructing a new Railroad from Graniteville to AuguBtp, and that the South Carolina Railroad has a right to claim any business' .. ; belonging to lt; yet, with a desire to adjust all of the subject muttois in contro rei r, the Colombia and Augusta Railroad Company cheerfully accepts yetti propo? sition "to submit tho entire question of tho connection at Oranitevlllc, use ot track' and privileges, terms and considerations of tho samo, to a joint committee, to oonals: Of three Directors from each of the two companies, to meet at tho earliest day practt aller tho acceptance of this proposition, tho said committee to havo fuji powers from bc th roads to treat of all ?nutturd in this connection." Vt'hils your pro? position is accepted, it is suggested that a better umpire would have been tho selec? tion of two or more experienced railroad gentlemen, free from preju.lioo or biaa on aocount of malters in controversy. Tiic committee of three will bo appointed frem tho Directors of thc Columbia oui Augusta Ralh cad Company this v>cek-by I'ri day-and will be ready at any tims thcreaftor to meet your committee.' Very respectfully yours, WM. JOHNSTON, Prstidtnt C. and A. R. R. Co m CiiABLOTTr i'-i> >5oe ra CAROUXA P.AILROXO COMPAXT, ', Pru?idwt? (Mee, Charlotte, M. C.. Xovembts 10f*t,.160S / WM. J. MAOBAIH, Prtiidetd South Carolina Railroad Company ; Dr.AB SIR * I am pleased to aunounce to you that upon a conference with th? Directors ot tho Columbia aud Augmiu Railroad Company, a committee oi < onie, enci h: been appointed hy this company to uonfer with a similar committee Item th? Din Lion ot the South Carolina Railroad Company, to adjust the differences be tween tbi tw > companies, according to your proposition. This committee of three will be read; to meei with the committee in behalf of the Souib Carolina Railroad Company, wbenover it may suit their convenience. I would suggest, for the convenience of both panic, that they meot in the City or Columbia- a terminal point to both i^udt ..ad a- early as practicable. Ver) respectfully, WM. JOHNSTON, Prtiidma [ool'Y.J SOOTH CAROM-sa RauwioAn COMPANY, I Pr44?d*Ht'? Ojlioe, Charleston, S. C., 'li'th Hovtmbir, l*0?. ? W.i JonxsTOS Pritidtnt, Columbia: Dc.u: tor Your lettors of i'tb and loth instants have been received. At this moment 1 ^nly notice that portion of tho letter of 9th, in whioh vou sjy: Dil - fenn" entirely fi om you in your construction of my last lutter." Bat voa do not hat you consider the proper construction. In answer to yours of ltJtn, 1 beg to say, that Messrs. George A. Trcuhciai, Henry Gourdin and Louis DcSaussinu have boen appointed thc OOUMaittee to meet the time Directors of inc Columbia and Augusta Road. They will be glad to enter upo the sabjocts referred to in past communications, as soon as your comtn'.ueo ero pre? pared to meet them in Charleston. I would respeetfnUy suggest that at least forty-eight h .rs notice bj given then, to avoid any disappointment which tho absence of any one oi them moy occasion. Very icspectfuUy 0 \Y J MAGRATH /V??f'oW LT To THIS D.eTE Nu ANSWER HAS BEEN RECEIVES NuR ANY NO? TICE OF THE PROPOSED MEETING GIVEN BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHARLOTTE AND SOUTH CAROLINA RAILROAD. Charleston, February 27, 186V.