Newspaper Page Text
Tha Augusta Bridge.
To the Editor of the Edgefleld Advcrtiar Sia-At the late session of the Legislature of this State, thecharter formerly granted to HENr SnuLxrz & Jcux McKrnxiE in respect to the Bridge at Ham burg and Augusta, was amended so as to permit their assignees Messrs. J sias JoNEs & JosEri J' Ta.znD to collect the tolls prescribed by that charter. This Act of our Legislature has been re ceived in the city of Augnsta with a " tempest~ of exclamation,"-uay more, with a torrent of denun eistion against the measure, and the Legislature that enacted itf and among our own citizens,-! am pained to see, there arenot wanting, those who though very poorly informed upon the subject, are'never th-less seeking to cant upon tire State the reproach of violated faith. f1 had been of counsel for Messrs. JbNs & KENNEDY in certain suits between them and the City Council eAugusta, and by that means be came familiar with many of the facts connected with the history of the Bridge, and the legislation of this State respecting it. I did not hesitate, therefore, when the matter came up for debate to announce to the Seate, my honest opinions an I convictions upon the subjeet. I refer to my professional rela tions towards Messrs. JONEs & KENNEDY, however, not with the view of shuning accountability. What I said and did in the Legislature of the State in rev pect to that measure, was done upon my responsi bility as a Senator from this )igtrict. I avow that I supported and advocated the act, and I proceed to vindicate it. upon grounds both of legal right and public policy.-It is conten.led, nay, assumed as an incontrovertible fact, that the City Council-of -.Augusta are the legal owners of so much of the structure of the Bridge as is witin' the limits of this.State I deny. it without qualitietin.-In 1813, this State granted to HENRY SnLrrz & LEwis CoorEa the exclusive privilege of building a toll Bridge across the river Savannah, extending from this State to the town of Augusta, and of receiving at the same certain . legal toles for the term of 21 years. Cooraa sliortly afterwards transferred his interest in the enterprise to JonN AlcKINNE, and the - Bridge was built by Siei.rz and MeKixNie, und r that charter. They however had no title to the soil upon which the Bridge was 'erected between the centre of the river and the South CaroIana bank. They were probably advised, that as the Savann:il, at that point, was a navigable river, the ownership ,was in the State and that their charter was, of it self, a sufficient title. Their interest in the Bridge and the franchise of tolls in respect to it was sold under the decree of the circuit Court of the United States at Savannah and became vested in the Bank of the State of Georgia who were in the receipts of the tolls in the year 1830. The Legislature of South Carolina in December 1S30, passed an Act exten ding the charter of 1813 for fourteen years from and afte6'th 21 years to which it was at first limited and vested it in the President and Directors of the Bank of the State of Georgia. The soil upon which rested the abutment of the li-idge upon the South Carolina bank of the river, was parcel of a tract of l]anthat belonged to the heirs of Isaac FAIR, that is to say, his widow LeCIr.LA who afterwards mar ried JonN B.. CoviNaoN, andl his two children. .onN It. FAIR & JANE C. FAIR. It was not until June. 1821, that SnorLrz conatracted with the heirs of Yam, under the sanction of the Court of Eqjuity. (the children being intfamts,) for the onei undivided fourth of the tract of land referred to, anid having obtained fromt the State the loan oif fifty thousand dollars, for whielh CovINo-roN hadl beeome bounid, as one of his sureties. Sui.-rz and Covia-roN, to secure payment of the debt, each excunted to the State a mortgage of his respective interest in the land. The debt remaining unpaid the Treasurers of the State exhibited their bill of complaint in the Court of Equity against Sumcr.'rz, CovING'rON & Wife, and the children of FAIa. In .June, 1830, a Decree wvas pronounced foreelosing the mortgages and providing for a partition of the hmnl, an d, for thaat purpose, diree ting that it should be sold. In pursuancee of that Decree, thme land referred to was sold by the Com missioner of the Court in septarate parcels on thme Snd. of August, 1830. At that sale the lion. BaYLIS J. EAnLE, having full authority from the Legislature, purehased for the State of South Caro lina, at the price of thirty foutr thousand six hundred and fifteen dollars, the four parcelk lyinig on the river, which included thme soil upon which rested the abugmnent of the Bridlge, and received from the Commissioner a ])eed of Convayance thereof. di. eribing the samte as containinag "18t acres, being "that part of a tract of l:mnd situate opposite the City " of Augusta and knocwn as the F-'Aa tract, bounded " on the east by lanids of .loniN Fox, on the South " by thme Savannah river." &e. A portion of the land thus purchased by Mir. ExaRE eumbracing sonme six lots, "as laid down in the oricinal plhm of lanm burg," including the soil tiponm which rested the abutment of the Bridge, was on thc 24lth Leeem ber, 1830J, sold by hima on the behidf of the $Ste to Mr. SAMIUEL hA Le, Presid.-nt of the liatak of the State of Georgia, in AXugu'sta, for the price of five thousand dollars and in the Deed of Conveyance thereof, the parcel including the liridge abmutmient is thus described :" al- a piece or parceel of ground '' situate within Covington street of the followinag di " mensions. tot wit: extentig from the margin of -' the river, at lowv water mark, to the Southern tine of " Mlarket street, :and bounded by east and west lines " of the widtht of the A ugusta Iiridge, it being una "derstood that the last picee or parcel is to be used " held, and enjoyed, solely and exclu-ively for the "purpose of the Bridge abutmietnt and a highwvay." This piiece or parcel of groundi inehtoling the Blrider abutnment was conveyed on the 27th Decemuber, 1831) by SAiJUEL [hALE to thme I':amk of the Stats' of Geor *gia. On the 4th Mlay., 1838, the Banik of the Suate of Georgia conaveyedl this "pzarel of ground" and all its itterest in the Bri'le, with its right of dleman ding tolls, to GAZAWAY 1B. LAnac, who eta the 2Ist, January 1840 conaveyed the same to the City Cun cil of A ugusta. The material structure of the Blridhge erected by SauLsrz & Mlc!INNx E exists no loanger, havintg been swept away by the iksxt of Mlay, 1840t, ~ad the Biridge now standing was built by thec City Council of A u gusta. Such is the derivatioin of the title of the City Council of .\ugusta, iai respect to so miuch of thae structure of the Bridge as is within the territory of this State. To whom belongs the ownership of the soil upon - - whieh is erected the Biridge between thec cenatre of ~ithe river, and the South Carolina batik ? I antswer, niot to the City Cotuncil of A ugusta. The fact is tin deniable, thalt the river bank, including the soil cov ered by the 13ridge abutmnent, beloanged to thte heirs of Fsnt. " Grants (If land bounded on rivers or "upon the margin of the same, or along the sante, "aboive tide water, carry the exclusive right and title " of the grantee to the cntre of the streami, unless 4' the terms of the grant clearly dlenote the inateintion " to stop at the edge or margin of thte river. When "a stream is usedl in a grant as a boundary, it is "used as an entirety to the cenatre of it, and to thmat n extent the fee passses. Whatever is affixed to " freehold is thereby mtade ptarcel of it-and is sub "jected to 1he samte r;ghts of property as the '- freehold itself." This I matintaina, to be the law of South Carolina. It may surely be assumed, that the Commissioner, in his deed to EARLE, de scribed the boundaries of the land arighat, mnd con formably to the description of the grant undaer which the same was held. If so, thten " the Savannah river" being called for as the boundary, in that direc tion, the grant under whlieh thte heirs of FAiR held *included, undoubtedlly, the lanad withain the bed to the centre of thte river. So also, when the Conmmis sioner of the Court conveyced to EAn LE, for tle State, " one hundred and eighaty (180) acres, opposite Aun gusta, bounded on " the South by thec SamvanaAa -rarer," the legal effect of the deed was thtat the lanid within the chaanel to the centre of thme river, be came vested in thme State of South Carolina ini full and absolute property-and that the potrtioan of the Bridge built upon it, supported b'y ptillars deeply sunk beneath the soil atnd fairly adhtering to it,I passed also with the lanid as parcel of it anad vested in fee sinmble absolute in thec State of South Carolinta. If it be however, as some have contended, that thte soil within the bed of~a navigable river, like the Savannah opposite Atugusta, is not the subjeet of private property-the legmal conseqiuences will still bef the same, for then it will result not onily that the State now is, but always htas been the owner of the soil within her territory upon which stands thme Bridge. Was any portion of the soil withimi the bed oif the .river conveyed to Mir. H-ALEs in 1830 ? Let the Deed speak.- Not the "river,"' but " the margin1 '> of the river at low water mark" is made the bounda ry in that direction. In thte Deed to EARLE for thel State, the lanad is described as bounded by "the Sarannah rieer"-in the Deed to H ALE, as bounded by " the margin of the river at lowo water maurk. The commonest mind nmust perceive thte difference. There is no ground even for thec surmist, that the Deed being expressed in such guarded and restrie time terms was the result-of actdent. Not so-i was the fruit of deliberate andrnlightened consider ation. Mr. EARLE in his report-to the Legislature . at the Session of 1830, of hais actings inrespect ti that matter thus speaks:." We also contracted tc "sell to Mr. SautEL lai.s, who is President of the "Branch Bank of the State of Georgia, in. A ugusta "some unimproved lots and ground. near the end " of the Augusta Bridge, on the South Carolina side. "Some. misunderstanding, however, arose in the "progress-of'the negotiation in respect to the c;ten " ofthe-conveyance; and in relation to the gronn aon which the end of the Bridge and the abut not "are built, which Mr. IALE seemed tolhave cpcc ." ted in fee, and which I declined conveying in that " way; because .1 supposed the State m'ght think i1 'advisable to retain some control over the Bridge " in future. The sale to him, the-refore, wis not " perfected, but I ~heive authority from him to make " an otler to- the Legislature, which will be more par "tieularly explained to your Committee, and which " I shall recomnpnd to be accepted." What the precise offer was. that ~Mr. ITALE had authorized to be made, we do not directly know, but it appears sufficiently by the result. This much ii certain-that the special Committee, to whom the matter was referred, recommended that Mr. EARLI be authorized "to make the proposed sale to FAMUEt TALE of Augusta;' whi-:h was concurred in by botl IHouses-and that within seven days after wards. EARLE executed to HALE the Deed of 24th1 Decem ber, 1830, already referred to. Let that instru meat be read by the light of the surrounding cir cumnstances. The South Carolina Rail Road war about to be completed. An immense commerce it was foreseql', would flow into the State across thal Bridge. The State was the owner of the land upon which stood the structure of the Bridge, and it, abutment within her territory. She had just re chartered the Bridge and vested it in the Bank of the State of Georgia-a corporation under the lan of another State, and wholly beyond her jur~sd'etior and control. a measure, to say the lea-t, of most quest:rn ible pol'ey. And now, it was proposed tc sell to that Corporation, (for thongh in form the sale was to IIsLE, it was well understood to be- for the use of the Bank.) certain lots of had, including the spot on whii.h rested the abutment of the Bridge. If the sale should be made, it was at the leas, bul common prudence to retain the Bridge after the ex pirdtion of the Charter to the Bank, solely :ti.1 ab solutely within theeontrol of the State, une mharass. ed by any rights or claims springing out of the ownership of the soil, by that Corporation. Fou wio cuiouhl'orrsee that~at the expiration of that Char ter. the. interests of the State mn:ght not demand im peratively, that the Bridg; with the franchise, he vested in another grantee. The le.arned and able .lawyer-who represented the State in that transact lion, took care that she sustaned no detriment. Wh at-means the passage of his report referred tol What else than this, that the very-question we arc now considering, arose in the negotiat:on with Mr. H ALE. The one desired the conveyance to extendl to the centre of the river, and to be in fee, whilst thy other prup;,sed to convey only to la water mark, and as to the soil covered by the abutment, to coil vey the same to the Bank, only during the term of its Charter from the State. Thus rtood the parties when the Legislature :resembled. But the Session intervened, and the Bank had obtained a renewal of the tr:dge Charter, its chief bbjcct doubtless in negotiating fur the purehase of the id. And now the parties met upon middle ground, iArw: consent od to receive a conveyance limited to low water mark, and EARLE to convey the soil covered by the Bridge abutment in fee, but with the stipulation that the same should be used, held and enjoyed solely and exclusively for a Bridge abutment and a high way. The legal efie.'t of this stipulation can not be mistaken. For whose benefit was it? Not the grantee's assuredly. It did not enlarge his rights. On the contrary' it restieted them. It was in sub stance a reservation be the State-nay, nore than tha', it was a formoal dedication of the " parcel of grouiid" coiiveyed to b~e the State's b'ghwtiay-to be an abutment for her Btridee--o be hi:d a.! hield mit merely subject to such public casemenits, hut upon the trust tha~t it should be d.:v',t'd to such purpose and uses, " sol-ly arid exelusively." . The City Council of Augusta, it is believed, have never claimeds any interest ini the soil upon which the Bridge is buiilt. 'rhey were a party defendatit in the ease of Yarborough, trustee, atnd others, vs. The Bank of the State of Georgia atid others, in the Court of Equity of this State. in their atnswer in that cause, their righlt to the Bridge itself, as distinguabemd from the franchise in respect ti it, if initetided .to b' as serted as being in fee, is placed uponi most enrlious grounid, for they maintain ini their own words " that "so far ais relites to thme nmaterial strtucture now ex "istinig, they hold it be thme right of hiavine caune-e .., ,...... ....tae ormier nigii, mine as that is cnmferred not otherwise than by their Chiartemr, it re suilts that the title set up by the City Council them. seces, is necessarily subject to thme litmitationa of that Charter. If it ho desigmned as the dedutctionm of a title in fee, it is incotmprehensible and me(aninogless: and intehlig-in men miust imarvel that for a property now alleged to be indisputably theirs, thme City Council of Atugusta were then't utterly tunable to sug gest a title, save one so feeble and rieketty that it breaks down in its very stateiment. Thleir re-building the Bridge in IS-40, it is clear, could give them tno right to it beyontd thet 14 y'ears of their Charter. They claiiimedl maer the Charter to thme Bank of the $tate at Georgia. which in termis provided that " if any accideint should happen toe the "saidl Bridge hereafter, so, as to reuder-t it im passa "ble, amid they fa'l to repair thme some within two v ear's fromi the tiime of unch accident happenling, " hen the Charter hierebye granited should be void.'' Whi--n the liridge was carried away bye the flood of 184iJ, they were biund therefoure, to re-build it. It was a part of the bargaitn betwem ienah miand the State-a tpart of the very price they were to pay tfor the Chatter. lladl there existed any pre'tee of claim 'in their part to1 the suit upon which the Bridge is huilt, it could not have escapecd the e-ye of thet abile esolicitear who drewv their answver. Mr. I havsmt, the A ttoriney Geniertil uf this Siate, in his able Repoirt to the Leg:, lature ait the Sessioni of l852, iutn thte subject of the Augusta Bridge and the navittationi of the. Sa vaannah river, comies to the concluion that the " soil "upon wehich stands the Bridge, except the ab~ut ' ament, which is a highway, is uiiquestional~bly the " property' of South Carolina.'' Surely these con siderations were usuflicient to justify thuo legisla-ture in r.-garding the portin of the Bridge within the territory oif this State as leer piroperty. B~ut miieh more than all this waus adduced to estub'ish her title. ThieJudgmenit of the Coutrt in the ease referreid to is direct to that very point. To unidersmtnd its bearing and efict it should be bornie in inmid that thme stuit twas brought in 184t, by Yanoooan, as Trustee of Stuz.rz, against the Btirk of tihe Staite of of Georgia, G. B. .A'uan anid the City Council of Augusta. Th'le bill alleged that in I1821, SutLrz had been unlawfully ejected fromi the posses-sion oef the Biridlge, andI claining that the Bridge teas theen, of right, the propr-rty of Snutmu, prayed that it be sold amid an account oif the tolls ordered fur thec bene fit of his creditors. Chancellor IIlla, (an il!ustrious n'tmi!) heard the cause (on the Circuit, and itn his Decree, after discussing various questions that arose, proceeds to consider the eltini of Snutnr, (suppsing it to lanve been unimpaired by atiy release, or sale, or itct of his.) to the structure of the Bridei, now that his Charter hadl expir-:d; arid thus lie dispewes of it: "Then as to anyv right of the Comrinani~lfts in the "]Brirdge itself, it would be suflicienut to say, that all " the Complainant Slmetnr's right amid interest " therein had passed away by thle expiraitiont of his " Chiirter. The franchise or exelnsive privilege " which constituted it his property, imo loncer exi5s, " and the material structure is attached to and " part of the soil, and wcould be the property of 4"the States, the owoners of that soil, if the J'iran " chise had not been renewoed to another." Nothinig couhld be more expieit-it is a Judgment of the Court full amid direct umpomn the very qntestion wec arc considering. Th~e elaim of Snetn~r, as con sidered by the Chmancellor, and rejected by hisi De cree, is the very claiim now set tip by thme City Con cil of A ugusta. Both claims arose unlder a Chatrter expressed ini the s:aine form of wvords, for thu. Char ter to the Bank of.the State of Georgia, un-leey which tIre City Couneil of Aiugmsta elatims, is but a reneweal of the Charter granted originially to SllrLv--and if his claim to the structure of the Brmidge einded with the one Charter,their elaimn unadoutbted hy expired with the other, it results therefore, that thec material structure of the Bridge, train thme centre of the river to its termination on the Nerthernm bank, belongs io the State of South Carolina--that in respect to anmy interest in the same vested in the City Council of Augusta, they were the imere tenats of this State, under her Charter to the Bank of thme .state of Geor gia--and that upomn thme expiration af that Charter, on thre 17th D~ec. IS48, the Stb te had a perlect legal right to dispose of thmat portion of thme Bridge as she thought fit. I will not enter into argumtent to prove that the eentral line or thlread of the Savannah is the true bounidary between then States of Georgia and South Carolina. I assume it to be so. It is svaree regard ed as an open questioni on this side thie-river. The State then was the lawful owner of thme portion of the material Bridge within her territorv.-and now I proceed to consider whether the recent Act of her Legislature in respect to it, can be justified' upon grounds of public expediency. To -apprehend this question a ight other matters, not spoken'of as yet, must now be referred to. On the 1 7th Dec. 1848, the Bridge Charter from this State to the Bank of the State of Georgia. ex pired. At the Sessions of the South Carolina Leg islature in the years 1848 and 1849, SIuLTZ prayed that, the Bridge be re-chartered and vested in him. The Leislture inclined a favorable ear to his me *moritl, -but it ivtas presented under unpropitious cir enmstatices. It was already known that Augusto cilined the frasnchise of tolls in respect to the whole fr:dgc:undCr her Charter fiom Georgia. An in mense tradc was passing across that Bridge.between -the South Carolina and Georgia Rail Roads, and the Legislature were unwilling to burthen it with any additional tolls. -It was also suggested that a suit in the Federal Court between S1utTrz and Augusta, was then pending in respect to.the Bridge (about the merits of which the Legisliture knew nothing) and that to grant a Charter to him, uncon ditionally, might perehanee, do some prejudice to the other party. The result was, that at- the Session of 18.16, the Legislature granted toSuitrz & MlcKIissu., a re-charter of the Bridge, for the term of 14 years. with rates of toll. greatly re duced, but subject to the proviso that they should not be allowed to collect those tolls until the suit re ferred to, should be determined against. the City Council of Augusta. By the Act of 1849, this' re striction was repealed, but another substitutedyto the efiet that the collecting of the tolls prescribed, should not subject the community to the payment of double toll. In Oct. 1851t SnWLTZ died, and .Joans & KENsDY bec-nc his Administrators. In his life time, SnutTz hail bargained with .%lcKiat~e for his interest in the Bridge Charter, but had not paid the purchase money. At the Session of 1852, Joas & K xsi:ov presented their memorial, setting forth, among other thing,' that when Snur.-z wras a poor bankrupt, and his credit gone, they, out of their own nut- abundar.t means, had advanced to him moneys to a larae amount, whereby le chiefly sub siste,l. during the latter years of his life, and that as the only recmpense fie could make, he had'-on' veved tithem all his interest in the Bridge Char ter, under the Act of 1819. They further bet forth, that arter S wu-rz's death, bel eying that something elke than mere mock ery was intended by ihat Act, they had paid with their own funds, to McKratr, some sixteen hiundired dollars, the purchase money of his interest in the Bridge Charter, and had roceivvd i dehed .couveving the same to them,-whereby they had succeeded to all the rights of both Suumri and McKissai under that Act, and they prayed that the Charter conferred thereby, be so amended as to allow them to colleet the tolls it prescribed. Their application undoubtedly was not without force. But there were other considerations which-imposed uposn the Legislature the imperative duty to interpose in their behalt. The people of Augusta have spoken out with singular plainness of speech. They will not be offended if I speak frankly also. While I dischtiim all digrespect towards that community, I insist upon the largest liberty of defenee. It will be rcmembered. that-in Jaitary 1840, the City Cotuncl of Augusta had acquired through LA MAR, all the interest of the Bank of the State of Georgia in the Bridge and the franchise respecting it. On the 23d DIee 1840. the Legislatur-e of Geor gia enacted-" Tht the said City Council of Au fgusta shall henceforth have all the powers, au " thority and privileges vested by law, in the late owners of said Bridges, and shall henceforth " have the exelusive privilege, of building and keep " ing up Bridges :aeross the Savannah River. at Au " gusta, within the corporate limits of said City " which are extended on the North over said Riter, " to the bautidary line between this State and the " State of South Carolina." As far back as 1841, the City Council of Augusta, in their answer to the bill exhibited against theim by YAaaonouGH,. Trust ta e, had said, " These Defendants deny that one Shalf of thme said Bridge is situate in the State of 'a South Car.'linia - On the contrary, they insist that "' the bedl af the Itiver, as far its low wtater matrk on 4the South Cutaliina side, is within the jurisdiction 4of the State of Georgia." The language of the Act of Georgia of 184(; is most signiticant: it as se tedl abniost in termis the jurisdiction of that State over the whole River. The C'ity Council of Augus tam so construed it-and they acted upon that con struction. Smietlrz & McKzvss, after obtaning a Charter from this State, for 21 years, us I hare stated, re ceived also a Charter from the State of Georgia, in 1814, for 20 years, and with the like rates of toll. So also, the Bank of the State of Georgia, after re eeivinig froin this State a renewal of the tf---' -. . .., aos olne i-aat by vir tue oif the onme Chatrter, andi tihe residue by virtue of the othmer. lUnt on the 17th Dee. 18-18$. the Charter fromn Suiuth Caoliina, under whitch the City Counmcil of A ugusta claimed, expired. Did they therenipon, ais thety ughit to have done, reduce their tolls. ta the one h::lf only oft their former rate ? Not so. Thley continuead to exact then, as before, without abate ment. When, tair example, they received talh from persoins desiring~ to pass froii thet Georgia side, did they recLeive it for passage to time centre of the Bridtre only, or foar passage across thne entire strue tnre fromu banik to bank ? Undoubtedly and anowo edly the hatter. Then they were taking tolls for pass~age ave-r a bridge writhuin the territorial liniits of this State ? But the right to take such to!l is an incident of sov'ereigty-a francehiise vested in the Stae-at priviege o-f a ptublic namture, wvhich cantiot legally he e~xere~sedl without a Charter or grantt froti thme Lemgislature. Anid yet thme City Council of A u umstat, from li th .llee. 18.18 to Namv. 18p52, contin tied to exa:t such atnd the same tolk< as hmad been takeni under Chatrters fromi bothI the States, makinig tillapplicattiont whatever for the retnewal of the fair iier Charter granted by S. Catrolina. They nerer would have applied ihr .sucht raenewal, I infer, bad niot .hmmsi-s & Kes.ov.D, ini 1852, given notic, by pub'ie ad certisement, that they would petition the Legislaiture, at its inext Session, for an amend ment of t heir Charter. Theloretupon the City Council of Augusta wvho had renminued quiescent sinice 1848, piroceeJedl to give notice thiat they also would apply to the ILegislature for a retnewail of their Char'er. Thle ptetitiners met and were heard before certain Coiimimttees of the Le'gislatumre, in D~ee. 185-2. To aphpreciate fully the claims of A ugusta upon thme fa vor of the state, othe-r nmatters maust now be tiaken into eonsidieratioin. By reason of the vast amnount of tprodluce and freight passing between thie D)epots Iof the,-Georgia andl South Carolia R. Road Conipa nies iacross thme Bridaie, the taills had now mounted up, as it is blecved, to somec thtirty thaousaind dollars ainnually. The delays of transortation-the ex petises of drayage and the hutrthen of- thte tolls, pressedl sorely upon the trade of both the States, aiid especially iutn thme South Carolin., Rail Road Copy Tha Comipany had authority front the Leiltr fthis Statet erct their Bridge from thieSoth Carolinaa hank to the centre of the River, Ibut fromi thiene~e to tihe Gecorgiai bank they could not extend it, exeept bay thme petrmiiin of A ugusta. This privile-ge the City Cotiicil of Atugusta for years withhield-the-y would naat fore-go thme tolls--ad fitnally in 1852, whiei the pr-essure from the Coim mercial intere-tsts aif bathi States grew too strong to resist. thieyyielleda only upomn the rondition that they shotuld receive from the Souith Carolina Rail Road1 Coiipanv, tn which the State herself was a large Stoeckholder, the moderate sum of onme hauin dred thiousand dollars. No better termis comuldl be hind.-so the bargaiin was struck and thme price pail. But the City Couoncil of Augusta wvere paissessed of the- franchise of tolis in respect to thme Bridge, solely undehar the Charter from Georgia. If -the central thread oif the River shiould prove to he thae bounda ry between thme two States, theii the Bridge, though extendinig in fact fraim batik to bank, would in late he a loll-bridge otnly in the cenitre oaf thme Rtiver. In that event the City Council oaf A augusta, in respaect to time toll -bridge, would standl toawards this State, substantially in the same potsition the South Cari-i n h. Rt. Company haad recenmthy stood tow-iirds thaem. Anal naw let us sum up-The City Counicil of Au gusna had placed upont time records of our Court an explicit and formal de-nial thtat any portion of the Saana-Rvr weas within time territoarial liimits af thais State. Thety had procured to be passed, an Act of thme L-gislatuire of Geaargia, extendingu herj jutr:sadicti.ah tnrst in termis, over the hme River, and under its authoarity they bad practically and ne tumahy givetn to it that operatiaon.. They haid usurped anm iampjortant franchise of thae State, and appropriated the lam-ge profits iincident to it for thme spaice of four years. They hind long dentied to the South Carohi ma Rail Road Company3, what weas laoudly demianded by the Cotmmerciaml interests of both States, the right of extending their Road from the centre of theo River to the Georgia bank, and had tint eon seinted umntil they hamd wruing from the State, with thie other Stockholders oaf that Company, the enrar mious sutm of mne hundred thousanid diollars-And now, at the very next Session of her Legislature, they paetitioned that a like privilege in respect to thme toll-bridge, .be conferread upon them, gratuitously, And to render the whole praoceding pre-eminmenthy uiine, thae arguimnt in their behalf, was i-itroduced with a pirmtestation to time efreet that the question of her right of jurisdiction over time River, was waived only for thme presenat. In thme long tract of time wats there. ove .n apnhiLaita to the favor of a State, at ended by cireumntanecs so cxtraot dinnry ? If litre were any persons, who above all others, were clear ly and indubitably undeserving of such a boon, it was, under the circumstanees, the City Cosmaiil of Augusta. They failed in their petition. So did Mears. JCNES & KENNEDY in theirs. rite Legis lature did not grant the prayer of either. Ar.other year elaipsed. '. he esNsion of 18.3 wan come and -)ONEs & hiKENNEDY again presented their Memorial for an amentent of their Charter. The City Council of A ugusta were prtioners no lenger. What the .Lealsliture in 185l had refused to give, tey had boldly taken, and triungly entrenched un der cover of the Georgia Statute of 18.1, they had in the interim. continued to apprupriate tle fraiehise of tolls, in respect to the Bridge, in is nple it maun ier as though they had received a Charter from the State, in the must absolute and eelu.lve termis. What now, I ask, did it become the -Legislature of South Carolina to do-? The high and jealous sp;rit fGeorgin, .in respect to her territorial limits, ad pished them to be on their guard also. She had a question of disputed boundany with Alahnmiia, as to thu Chatahooehe, and the whole of that river, along her border, had~ been aijulged to he within. her territory. She is .now eontelndiot in t'' .t creme Court of the U.S., with ith State of Feorida, fora Southern hutndary, that rnns almost within .onnon shot of the Gul of ofAlexic. lBy the coeure of'tle City Council of Augusta, we aleo were in volved in a e.-.ntrover.-y with her in respect to our abundary on the Savanmtah. Were we to remain passive until unlawtiful possession hid ripened into 'right'?. For five years the State had suihttted to 'theiractieal extension over her territ, r of a law of Oeorgin-foer five years to the usurpation by the City Council of A ugu-ta, ofher undonateJ franchse. -Were we to suffer the ancient bontadarieusof her ter 'itory to be curtailed, mud the greeatest of her navi le rivers, at its most important point. to be with wn from her jurisdiction ? The Legistature of outh Carolina were constrained Ii, at. 'They euli tt Say, there is i controversy between certain par tles,-in respeci: to this B5ridge, aini we will reimain ;nkutral and do nothing. To do nothing wns pre ejmely what the City Council of \ ugusta detsired They were prnectically in the po-S"an ,.f the State's uchise, and iot to mtaike an eth tiv e grant to then Assignees 'f Siti.rz & iClNitNs., was in etfect to t* the Gity Council of .ugusta. '1 here was, I mantain, no other alternatwe. The State was con istrained, as innctlers stood, to grant to one or the uiher, for not to grant to Josts & I-N~r~eay. was to 've to the City Council of Au:itit. Oight she to Eve preferred the atter ? Thy were, I repet, the vary last persons, to whsmni uth a grant ouellit to Itrve been made,. The State conh'l not have made it. iunder the circumstances, without forge-ting her own -mlf-respect. tnt maore than this. .Jo :s & K E4siuY .Were the only persons to whomI the -tatc could jUstly grant the franchise. They had succeeded to all thie righta of Snrt.'rz & MlcKNNie, under the Act o'f 1849. That Act conferred a eight to the frnehise; though cl'uged with a condition as to the enjoyment of the profits. Will it be said that Act was in form merely, but not in subsIutce, a grant ? JoNEs & hENNEDIY brforc the l:te Act of this State had assigned to the City Council of Augusta. I all their interest in the Charter, under the Act of 1849, could not the City Council of Augtusta have furthwith set up a Tull-gate, at the South Caroulinn end ofite Bridge, and proceeded to collect the toll, pescribed by that Act? No one can deny it. Theh there was substance in the grant umier the Aet of 1849 ? The State had gone too far to re cede,.and ntill 14 years had elapsed from 17th 1)e cember, 1848, she could not have tansferred the franchse to another, without violating her contract, and revoking her own grant to SnULm. & .\cKuEsw. But our Act of 1845 has been referred to; which provid d that from anel after the expirationm of the Charter to the Bank of the State of Gleorgin, th franchise, in respect to the Brid.;e, should be vested in the South Carolina Rail Road Comiany, and that that Company should meiake eompecnsation to the City Cimn~eil oef Autguista, leer the portion of thle Briidae within the territory of th's State. Thle soile object of that Act was to give to thle South tareinea Rad imhd Compo-tey a at ronig psitein ill their ne~gitia tions, for the privilege of crosnsinrg the river, and the provision as to comipensation was undloubtedly intended to render the Acet the less oljectionnib!e to, Asgasta, who, it was known, claimed the Briee, under her Charter fromn Geurgiai. The whole mnovemenet wasi a failuire. The South Carolina Rail Road Coiupaniy unn illing to incur ibe dipkhaneure of A ugusta, formally rntusd to accett the grtumt, and the Aet becamee a nuility. I lhave first to rema~rk, that the chaium fot compenisation, re' co nized by that Acet, is wheolly tunfun--' .... ,mi(i5 etOeFs ior :- 5fears, a iimiua e ui (1n land belonmginig to her ais peroprie'tor. and ir~ con sidleratioen of their doine so, Crants themO thre privi lege, during tha~t termi, of taiking~ certaini pres.ribedl tolls. They erect ansi keep up the Bridlge, andl re eeive the tolls, duriing the terim of th--ir Chareter. The liilge is a fixiture andl belongs tee lie State, as proprietor of the neil, and at thle expiration of thti ir Ch.irter they dteand comeinctatoe lir the strute tIn~e. IlTh es er is. they have received it alrenily. The teihls that were granted them. was thre pitce pil hy the Stite. Wasn it niot enough ? The- one haelf the coest of the Bridlge was "a little tutnnareds of sixty-five hundred duollars," whnili tecne half of the tushi, receiv-ed, duringt the 14 years oef their Char ter, wvere- not less, it is beclieveh, t hemi two Iilhneed thouts:md~i dollars. A tniin-by the v'ry herio-i of their Charter, they- wvere to erect arid keep up the lRridge " at thecir own e-xpense ;" buit ir the Str~te hais toi pay themo for it. then the Br-idge- hns hbeen built undouhbtedly not at their expeanse, biut 1,ers Thme preovision of the Acet of 1845, as to e enmpren snitiien, it is clear, the-refiere, was dlrawn iai muis'eei eeptioan, or didregard of the ac-tuar! rights ref th i- State. Neverthenless. the State thriough that Acet has poketn. Let hecr words stand tlist. Whlit then, I n.k. is the equitable ehaim for comiapensattiona nildmitted hey the Act referred to? Tihe Act of 1845i contemip'ated that imnmediaiclh/ after thre exhpiratioin, iain 18-18, of thne Chairtcr tom the Banak ef the .State of G-orgin,. tunder wvhomi the City Cootncil of A ugnena claitmedl, thre S. Carulinia Rail Road Comupimy shtitclhi as ian'e the possession of the' franichise. in respr et to the Er-id.e, nnd in that event-in that state of thaings. it recig nized the equ'tauble claimn of' the City Coneneil et A u gnsta, feer comphensationa as to thme portion of the lBridge within then territory of theis State. The con ecssiona by that A-t, of any e-quitabele claim~ te eeem pensa-tion, has this exteant-andl nio meore. A te the City Coenneil of Autguasta, now in: the' position mi: which they stood, at the exheiratin of their Chatter frome this State, ini Decemiber, 1818 ? Fr removald from it are they. For ive years. without any -coler of right under the law of South Caerilin, they leave approprinted thre eatlire tiells fori peasiage nero's the liridge-tiihs aneceuntinig in, the aztregate, it is be ieved, to not lessq thmti one htundered ind theirty' timuts and dollars, tot the one hialf oif which the- State of S. Caroliann u-as tundoubtly entitled. let not itis asuf ficient c-ompensntioni ?' In their Answer toi the Bill exhibitedl against thiemi by Y.uennonuoran, Trun-te e, ini 18I1, the City- Concel oif A tigenn thus speak: "These Defendanits admit the or-igianal buildiing of a t'he sanid lIridge, aned these I)-fedantts can ntet be " lieve the samie cost S73,i00O sinrc the re-builing ii of the same, during tile prevdtiece of e-qual .'; hiigh " pric,-ti, cost these 1)efendlants biut a little upwards 'of thirteen thorueend dallar-s." Tihe accotunt then is thus to lbe stated. Tihe one half the cist of the lBriJee would lie sonie sixty Jfive undred deolars, whiihe the onte haelf the to!ls ureceiv-edl since Dee. 18-48 (to say nouheing of the SI0,0 u'tttt laid them by- thec South Ceacroia Rih Rioad Comt pay in great part as a contsideranntioin fir loss of fit ire tell) wonlel amonunt to some sixty tive thoiusandr llahrs. If tie Stale of S. Car-olina hadii exhibted he r ill of comphlauint naainst them in the Coturt sef Chanut erv for an neeoutnt of the tiells, and threy hadi lend :ehl the advanetauge of being purchasers in p.ossesin wit h ut notice of her legal title. wuhat is the uttermostI thev coulhd hatve claiumed? Whant meore than this, toi set fi'thre value of one half the sttructure oef the Blridge,. against the amoutit oif uinnuthior-iaed teels they hadni I received. What grotud of co..hplaint thien have they, u-len they- hatve receiveed alrendy te-fold the rpenation that wotuld he awnirded thiem ini a Court of equity and good conncience'? And thaet oepensationr they hanve ree-ivtedl to all practical in ents aend purposes. The State forbheners teo relatim he uannuthoeri-zed tells theyv have appiroprinted, nid he Assignees of Sur vrz & itlcK INNnia tine, unider heir Charter, enmpo' red to oleet sinly the small a redeed tells heoreanfter tee acerne. Thceclaium , f the City Connreit of A natu-sta, for equitatbhe ente- t esatiori now, I maintain therefiere, is utterly andti esetially difyerent from the ein r-egneized hby ~ he Acet of 1845. N~o recoignitioen of sucht claitn is ontained in the Act of the last Session of the Lec-I isture, beeause it u-us believed to have becen orgini. ly without foeundeationu in justice or law-heenuse it I was regarded, to all practicnl purposes, as aniply stisfied and paid-and beentuse if sucht an euity in their fatvor evecr snbsiseted, it has been efl~eetually re pelled and demieli-hecd. by other and opposinug equi- E ties on the panrt oef the State. Trha franchise or right to take teell for passeige across a bridge, is a sepnrate nnd distinct thing from thre bridehi itsehf. It does nit belong to the owne-r of the braidge or of the lnnd, upont whicht e th. idge- :. is .......... by. ..:..... ..f h il alpo et in the strueture or Foil, but it is, as I have said, franchise or privilege of I publie nature vested n the State. The peolicy,- alwnys pursued, has bee not fir tho State to retain such right in its ow hbneds, us a source of profit, but to grnnt it to ind vicuals upon reasotble terms. such a grunt u ehatrter is not a gift from the State, but at contrac between tiel, State and the person t- whoni it i grant'-d. The grantee enL'ncees, fur and during r-ertain pertied to keep up the bridge, and should Ibe swept away by Ilood, or otherwise destroyed, t re-buld it, so :s to provide e.ife and1 eomtediuti pas:.ge to the public, and in considerttion of- thi the State confers upon him, duiing that period, th privihege of exaeting ce:rtnin .reasotable toils frot pesrsnics cpassincg over the same. 'This is it substane the contrnet between the s. tate aml Messrs. Jove & iKesv:vs y, by virtue of the late Act. The property of the City Council of Augusta, i regard to the Bridge, must relate either to thi nut erial trnceture, or t-> the franceiske of toll in reupe< to it. As to tih,. former, it is preserved, protecte 11md4 defendtei by the special provision of the ast Act of the Levqsinture, that nutting therein; com inined, thou!d in anywise impair or prejudice th:- same. If, therefore, they had any property i rie ,.trit,:ture of the Irdge e iefure that Act, the hswe it, ill nil its amcplitude, now. Then as to th franehii *, Iid thry out ciaie under tei Chcarte fronc this State to the Bank of the State of Georgit aun did nut that charter end i site 17th Dececbei 1844. What other grant have they 1 It would b too lreliosterous to lay claim to it :older the dee frorn E~Afr.E-tee IlAtEa. But I reunintain, dtt eve if they had been the owners of the I3ridfce, and n tie soil upon which it is erected, the State woul have been entirely justified in granting the Frtin ehise to another. " yo franchise or right to kee "bridges or ferries, should in propriety, if practicn Stil- aecl consitenlc with t/Ae public teclfare, be coal ferred on thee owneri," 'tiThis is the trne princiyli of liw and right. as adjudged by the Court of Er rers of tlie St:le oet Georgia, in Young vs Ilarriso: 1 Geo. R'tcs. It, in their eagerlesi to assert the; rigits under their Charter from Georgia, the Cit Ceecneii of A cncsta. have ,e+t theemselves in opposi tion to the tate of iSc.nt1e Carelica iy lice attenp to eurtail her territery-to despoil her of her frani le se-anld to deprive her of her jurisdiction ove ite greate.t of her uaviwble Rivers, at its most icn portent point, then tiey have rendered .it io'longu Ces;::tent n ith her public celffre. that the Charte tudet w hich they once held should ie renewed i their favor. And if such a state of things has bee biough; aeout lYtheeir own aets. whom have the to b;micce hut themselves ? I minietnn. howevel that they had ie equittble ce.ime whatever upo the State, fer the renlewal of their Charter, arising Ireni ownership of the iBridge or of the sa.il upc wehici it is erectec'. It was to protect the Stat : ainst all embarrtssment from this very sotrce teat in the deed to S.vcL. ILe... were inserted th stipul:ticn as te the Bridge-:itti:ent, and the pr rie and gurded imitatiion of the conveyaIce t lea' water nrk can the Southe Carolina bank. That a tax uin the community, in the form e increased tccl, has resueltel fromit the recent Act a ihe Stuce, I admit. Such c cotnsequence necesLr rily attended any eiifetve or acetual assertion of ju rid:eti-n by the Statu. in respect to that Bridge Upon this very account the State forebore to inter pose for live years, nd until frbearance had cease to e even respectnble. The incolnvevieclce froei this source could no longer be avo!ded, consistently iith the tights nad mterests of the State. Let tie intell:gence of tLe community be the judge. Tic state in granting the franchi.se to Messrs. .oNEs I Kr.xYN.oY. leave noet commiflitted it tee teeworthcy handa It will not he their fault if the community are no sped;1y re!ieved of te hurthcen of high tolls. If th Mty Cc'uncil of Aucgusta conceive that their right cave een inevaded, our Courts are open and has aever deneed theml justice. Nay imore, our Court ie A peai are now sitting ilm the City of Clearclestoe t rhem institute the neeclsary ldi proceedng t fhe arancet the .rigts of .ioEs.-:y or aEny~ othe tes, ien they deiettci arrae.geNco det, icm wuho iiz-d tle.sh e i nterposedl th bandee if hegl toullo tsd ie wtee judgm~cenrt may~~g b tle roml our ien If lsgesot If te y l declneto do tis, tihencg hemee ncmi.t the cigh of . yoef & Kn+'DY, feebee lc am autorisedtioc uaywit, of thteentee aueu ue..tony equrabecarraneet whchl w reiJ.hepbi fo h bu.e Cf igtaLk hen t 1 ~ least, s isettthe tomh ictod Anua, collect 'rom tenuniatiern unrthye of~ theem and unjiu >ii rueies. c Teur ochrbernt disrvnnt. it eceOlee tWtte uat ntiDistr .ia4ie EDaGc- o"Mct ~svEIELDgei, S. C. Tou Coeoru. Ti. art.cl.. ofw '~aisc now abroa upona clectan itncesdIly e received trdsbsciri and i mser willee I We reit gese to statoee~c e t atl thcenme ofc thec cenOet en Wuie Seutin thieubDisrc, rhnag eed I -..-. To C ort orns. Sthrtt nh svrieetecslave been received adnilapa etwe met cocahl ncoc appear inmmediately onl account of te ess eof other matter. Some islet onecs have been tel ut alto. We wcili enldealvor to give all a sheowinej ciet week. Col. Carroll's Article. W E call lihe calmI attention of ourt feiiow.iitizensi, 01 coli sides of~ the Sav'annh, to lice atble actd leucidi Coin numetatione of Col. .3. P. CAcanooac., uaponlice stcbjec f thce Blridge at Acegusta. Let not its le-lgd'b dete ny inctellhigenat reader from closelty exalmincing heis ar mlai cthronaghoetl. We are deceivedi, if all unpere udiched- mtitnds doe not admit tile -ouncdeness of heis rea ucing ned tiue forc~e of icis conacleusions. Joseph Abnoy, Esil. Trumts geentlemnee piclnblees a very lengthy article psp our first pntget, wichl we have neither time no pace tec criticise, ti eek. We bespeak for it I arefui perusai. The " A. G." ET ande Mr. Prus?, of ouir town, has an excellent articki f iithiipopular brandl of Cigars. Theere's no bettei mceekineg titan thtat affourdedc by tiee "s A. G's." Tihei ire Alt Gscod, c-eriaein. Anad if persiens wising then cin't call soon, they'it be All Gonce likow-ise. 1Eore Wedding Cako. W: hcave receivedi outr fee, for thee marriage notic< '3Miss Manv E. LAKE andt .llr. BURizs, in the skape a haenk osr two of deliciecs Bridal cake. Althouegi e dacnt mchi like teo see ouer Edgefield girls taker way offto thee Far West, yet wve ardlently wish to: le yoeunmg coupcile loeng lives of unemitipted bliss. Antj uc farewell to Bucrns and isis dearie. - Gold! Gold! Gold! . MOnE Goald in Edlgefield! And thcis time, it lea, een fecunde one the Pincey-woods side of the District! 'elI Rev. Mlr. W ALtKExa exhibited to our admiring eyes, n ye-ste.rday, a bieauttifui. specimen of goidrok, founl y ihimcelf, uepon hcis farm, a mile or two from this ince It is the best iendication for genad digginegs wve ave seen in some timeC. We advise Mr. W. to prose. ctc his explouratiiuns., The San 2'rancisco. -- TuE papers hacve recentlly been i'liedi with thede. is sat the lerrific ship-wreck of tis vessel. .We are revetedeu. fruom giving nut readers any of these par. cuars, by the length of two origineat Communica ons, wiih excleude almost every tihing else. Sulc it to say, that aneotheer suartineg disaster heac ccnlen adde to the long iist of accidents which have appened ducrieng the Fali and Wilter of '53. One ecicred anid tifcy more men and women have beern wiallowed- upe l, at watery grave. An JM. D. laying eggs. As execange anenounces the fact that a Doctoc onebodcay " laid eon his tablee" the other day a beauti' el egg. llrra fort seience and down with you! hagais ! We are sorry that it is out of our powec puet otur reauiers in fulil posciession of thce "i mou in rcondi,"e in tihis case-suppose it to be, however, a -Nebraska. t Otis of the prominent matters of Federal legislation, L just now, is the move to provide a Territorial Govern ment for Nebraska. The Bill before Congress is fath eredt by the "Giant of the West,". Senator Douglass, and is basedf, as to its slavery features, upon the Cor C promise of 1850. Of course therefore the doctrine of - u non-intervention is fully recognised. But Mr. Dixon t of Kentucky, wide-awake to the apprehension that u Fresnilers may claim the Missouri Compromise as be= ing of full force now despite their repudiation of it when terrilory below 36. 30 was in question, has moved an amendment to the Bill reported by "1 the Dong luna." Hi.imendment annuls in effect that other Compromise.an3 fairly opens Nebraska to all the citi ztens of all thg States of the Union, with equal privi. 1 leges to all. We trust the'neasure will be adopted in this shape. For, although it may be urged that the Compromise of 1850 irtually abrogated the one of. 19'0, yst it is far better for .the allaying of all strife J that aeurance.should be made doubly sure upon this tI vitally important branch of our territorial regulations. The tone of the present Congress encourages this hope that this good thing will be done. But the throes of e Abolitionism portend a struggle of no little rancor. r MURDER OF A SOUTH CAROLINA VOLrNTEER. -Mr. Timothy Cahill a member of Chester t:ompany, Palmetto Regiment, was murdered on the Mlississippi near Rodney, about the 20th of November last. The circumstanes were as l follows: Mr. Cahill left this county about the . 'l2th of November, in company with Mr. George R. Vaughan, for Texas, and at Rodney they fell - in. with a man named McCloud, who stated he - would go to Texas with thetm. At night they a camped, and Cahill and McCloud slept. The ar - next morning Cahill missed a very tine gold " , watch, and probalbly accused McCloud of steal- w r ing it. 'TIe hitter, exasperated, stated that he r also had missed five dollars, nnd drawing forth a bowie knife and pistol swore he would kill f, t Cahill. 3Mr. Vaughan immediately rode between I ~ them, to prevent their coming together, and McCloud, under pretence of giving itis pistol to r r. Vaughan, came up to within a few feet of r Cahill, rushed under Mr. V's horse, and -tabb. d n Cahill with it bowie knife. Cahill fell, but re- * 1 covering pursted McCloud shout one hundred " yards,and tell dend. Mr. Vaughan discharged , both barrels of his gun at McClond, but without . n eo'ct, and the murderer made his es:pe. An z inquest was held upon the body of Mr. Cahill, Iand a verdict in accordance with the ahove cir Scutmstanee was rendered.-D.allas Gazette. - T '' DOINGS IN THE CAGE OF UNCLRAN BIRDS C ON Wednesday night, 18th inst., two prison- in ers, HOWARD and SMITH, broke jail at this s f place, and escaped. IhOWARD is not a doer of r f good things as his name imports, but on the . contrary, unless fame belies him, lie has been - a frequent doer of deeds felonions. He was - . here awaiting sentence upon convietign of horse - stealing. He has been a stage-driver, circus I man. and so forth, and probably thence derived s his illicit fancy fir horses. The man who, delights in the anonyme of at SMTTH, was a ditcher, and one day growing of wrathy with a fellow-worker, dealt a blow upon of his hand with a spade, whereof the hand morti- w fled, and . the man died. Ie; was awaiting. trial. i In consideration that HOWARD, is abrad, it "t will be prudent to keep a watch on steed and - s stables. A more minute description of tho personnel of these fugitives, will be more proper under the hand and ,.eal of his Excellency, to whomn we r defer the duty.-Abbevi lle independent Press a: - ~lo IDEATH OF- .IUDGE CI(ARLETON.-We regret tY to learn that Judge CHARLETOS died yester isy hi mortning, at hIs residence in Satvanttah. lHe wasn an accomplished gentlenman, an etminent jurist, fe and most estimable mati. Such a mati is a loss to any State. P'li - oh Hetnry N. Snrgent of Newv Boston,'N. HI., re aged 28 yeatrs. on Saturday murdered Miss S. . t Jones, nged 17, by shootitng her four times with - a revolver: lie then shot himself, atid expired abont 6 hours after. It was a love afi'air. Both parties were respectably connected.I TUE VENERABLE Bishop Sonle lef\-Nashiville to on Wiendny niigntth 26th Dtebcrii, on'his 'irt second visit to..California, where hte goes to cc further the iterests of the Chttreh of which he li is a highly esteemed and itnfluetntiatl metmber. ' I pr MoniE TifAN sixty crimiias have been exnt- or cuted in the United States during- the year 185:3. and ttine are now itn prisont under sentence of death. A JIrN.-The most beantiful flowers are those whichs are double, such ns alouble rinks double roses atid double dalints. What artn urgtnmen~t is this ngninist thte chilling deformity 1 Iof sitigle bedsteads ! "~ Go marry, "is written. otn every' thing beantifnil that thet eye rest upron fo -begiiing with the birds of paradise, and lea- ci, vintg oiff with Iipplek-blossoms. era PAtRsoN Brrowntow says ; We have published a paper for Fifteetn dreadful years, and furishettd an our paper to hundreds of mien for years, who a have never had the honor and princ'iple to piay -ou ts oue cent. - ~t dt HYMENIA . th C lar aIED, iti this Village, on Tuesday morning, Ja 1ith itnst., by Rev. C. A. Raynmond, Mir. B. C. ein liarks and Miss Ass L. PENN, eldest-daughter ofY Mr. G. L. Penn, all of this Village. " Mlsanten, in this Village, on Sunday morning, - the 22.d inst., by Rev. C. A. Raymond, Shij. As DR EW J. NEAL. and Miss CA-rmauss. greiat-grand daughter of Mrs. SARanu Liatina, all of this Dis trict.I MARRIED, on Thursday the I9th lust-, by the Rev. Johni Trapp, at the residence of D~r. Thios. fot ILake, Miss MArY ELIszaRE-rn, eldest diimghter of gu Mr. Elias Lake, late of this District, but now of of Caddo Pairish, La., and Mr. Joens HI. Butts., of the latter place. -ani .-.. .--.- n D * tn thc 16th inst., of. Pneumnin.', EL.BEIRT daw MontGAN, it1 thto forty-eighth y'ear.of hIs age. Thess deceased was connected wvith the Rtepubili can Baptist Church in 1S31. and remaitned so until his death. lHe professed, during Isis last illnies, a o perfect resignastion to the will of his Ilivine Master. t1 He Jeaves five children, and a nusiber of relations y attid frien'ds to mtourn his loss. -DIEDo, at his father's residence in Edgefiel'l Dis- . triet, sin the 8th inst.,-3ZYJaSI RAisio, in'the 22d1 year of Isis age. I~e united hsimself to the Uaptist Church at Mann tain Creek, itn 1852, and continued a consistent member until his 8eatht. Ile was kinid and getne- - rous to his frienids, rematrkable for Isis parental afl'ee-[ tion, and was adnmired aind beloved by his acquaint atiees. We truly lament the loss of so brighst sin me evidenee of future usefulness, atnd we~ siseere~ly symipathtise with the deeply afficeted parents, rela tires and frienda of the deceased. -trt Oorrespondece of the Advertiser. IIA MBUIRG, -lan 21. 40 Corro.-Since our last report, the long-looked fordo 'lvics fromi Liverpool, hsave been received, which thte caused rather a better feeling in our Market, though no quotable ddvance in prices.. The unsettled state of of thec War ini Europo, still has quite ans influence sar on prices in this country ; andl, unless .it assumes a s nore paii appearaneqpon, we caitnot reasonaibly look for much-improvement in prices. The gette-J rid deereYse in the receipts still continues to aug mt-at le latest dates it was 585,000. We nmake no chaitge-in our last week's figures of 74 to 94 ets. * D. and ______________apj Notice.:. A"'''' thoeaving demands against the Estate - of the late Maj. James Wallace, will render them in to me properly attested, by the f'rst of Feb rttary next, and those indebted to the said Estate LA will make immediate paynt. NI R. G. WALLACE, Ex'or. r..an tf 2 utler Lodges No, 17,, 0 , IF A Rcgplur ieeting of is.g. will be held 3D their 11l an Monday. evening neit: at 7 o'cloek. 11. BOULWARE, e'y. Jan 18 1t I 8orn's Creek Beat Company,: .AT'TENTION S 01U are hereby commanded to be and apper at your regular parade groand, at Edgefield A., on Saturtay the 4th February, armed jind nipped as the law directs for Drill anal inst" By order of JOlN WI J. L. A Dnesox, O. S.. Jan25 2t , - A CARDI WOULD RESPECTFULLY sayto all per. son', indebted to me, by oe: or.otherwi at I am stilt at the Old- Stand, patiently' Wafting r settlements,-and I A Ml CAN1JID hritay at oil my unsettled hkriner will be. niiselsiil itely, handed to an Attorney for Cudleetion,. cn e 10th of February. LOD 1 ' .an 24 t . issolution of Co-Partnershire 1IE Firm of Farwr.are & Evans, Is this day dissolved by mutual consent. . FREELAND di EVANS. Jan 12, 1854. Particular Notice., LL Persos indebted to tfie Firm of Faus. LAND & EVANs, either by Note- of Aeeours, e thus timely notified that they must pay the. rme by the I tith February, or they wilt be sed thout exception. - FREELAND & EVANS.. Jan 25 3m 2 U The Independent Press will copy 3 times aua . -wardl account to this Office. Law NOt.ce1 IIE Undersigned has removed to Fgedela " . L.. and may be found at his Office, foraieil, . cupied by .Ions ItAterT, Fsq. TUOS. P. 1M AGRAT , - ArroaEr ar Law.. Jan 18 1mt F Bargains, Bargains. 'lIE Subscriber intending to close up his b us' L neas f.,r the present seausn. will MANUFAC [TItE the renainder of his Stuck of Gooda :r He would nay to all who wish to purelehaClotd:. CHEAP, and made up in. FIRST RATE CYLE, come and leave your measures, and Ihel all be put up at short notice. . JOUN LTON, Aorn Jan 20 6 30 Likely Young Negroes.. - VILL be sold.before the C.-urt luser :.iCe.. V lumbia. on the first MON hA Y in F.bruary. xt. Among them are lInuse Servants, llotge tv d Field H ands, all able to work.. The condiu - sale will be notes, with good endorser., at tither the banks in Columbia or Charleston, .at 60 days ih iuteret from date. . The subscriber offers the above negroes.fo rid tend;ng to change his former busines.,.and fur.V ter reason. J. M. E. SHARP 4 Jan 25 2t Brought to Jail. - RUNAWAY SLAVE hnas been lodged t - the Jail of this (n::efield) Di..rict, :wh yi Ihis enme is A LFR ED, and ay that he be neys to Jesse Barnes, living in Edgeome Conn ,N. C. H e furihser states that lhe hsas bees, red to John T. Barnes, of Georgetown S. C. Said negro is dark complected aned about et 7 inches high. -- The owner is requested 40o come forward, ove property, pay charges and take him awaye herwise he will be dealt with as the law di I~ts. W. W. GOOD31AN, J. E. D. * Jan 256 tf2 7 .Brought to Jail. ke RUNAWAY dlare hass been lodged In .the Jail of this ~(Edcgefield) District. whO ys his name is AUSTIN, and -thatihe belong+. . !William Doreb, of.Wayne Con c C a gro la atio'ut fitfeet47h msplexion. Said feilw~shath has e~l to John T. Barnek, of 'Geoigetown, S.; The owner is requested to come forward, rive property, payw charges and take -him aa the rwise he will lie dealt with as the law direct, W.-W. GOODMA N, J. E. D. Jan 25 tti 2 5 tate of South Onrolina,I EDGEFIEI.D DISTRICT, IN ORDINA RY; Y IT. T. WR IG HT, Esqr., Ordinary of Edgefield District: Where"ns, Henry Seott has applied to me r Letters of Admuinistruation, on all ansi guhar the goods nnd cha~ttles, rights and, ,dits of Thor'. H~sasaw late of the Die et,a:foresaid.dcenased. -t These are, therefore, to cite and admonish all I sing~ular, thu kindred and creditoers.of the. d deceatsed, to he and -appeasr before me,ua r next Ordinmary's Court for thle snid District, be hsolden at Edgefieid C. H., on the 6th r of Feb. next, to show cause, if any, why said administration should not be granted. 'iven under my hand asnd seal. thia 21st d~ty of ~. in the year of our Lord one thousand -- lit huntdred and fifry-fonr and in the 78th' -' tr of Americans Independence. U i. TI. W RIG HT, 0. E. D. Jan 25 2t . . STATE 01F SOUTH CAROLINA. EDGEFIELD DISTRICT. IN ORDINARY. bY UT. T. WVRIG H1T, Esq., Ordinary ofEdge. 5 field District. Wherena, R ob:. Meriwethser has applied tomen Letters of Administration, on all and sin.. ar the goods and chnttles, rights and credits Elbert Miorgan, late of the District aforesaid, eased. I'hese are, therefore, to cite anfd admonish all I singular, the kindred and creditors -of the I de..ensed, to be ansd unppenr before me, at next Ordinary's Court foer the snid Distrief, be holden at Edgefleld C. H., on the'6ti (Iof Feb. next to show cause, if any, why said administration should not be granted. siven under nmy hand and seal, this 23d day lkn. in the yenr of our-Lord osne.thonaand ht hundred aind fiftv.four, and in - the 78th r of American Indejpendence.I II. T. WRIGHT, 0. E. D ran 25 2t 2 State of South Carolina, EDGEFIEL.D DISTRICT. . IN ORDINARY. iY II. T. WRIGHT, Eaquire, Ordinary of Edgefield bistrict. - rWherense Richard F. Barrett has applied to for Letters of Administration, on~ all singular the goods nnd chattels. .rights credits of Martha Barrett late of the Di. t aforesnid, deceased. - - hdse aro, therefore, to cite and admonish alt singular, the kindred and creditors of. the deceased, to be and apped' before ise~at . ; next Ordinar?'s Court for the jaid Dstie;..- i e houlden at Edgefleld C. IHuse, olthet - 'of Feb tnext to show cause, iqi said admninistraetion should not..jnoi< lven tinder my hand anssealt 23&thbe kan. ini the ear our of I 4 s ~ ' d eight hun ed and fifty-fo~u u ~~~ ny.egtyerof Americdd nyegttyerH. T. WV 0H~O E D Estray.6- ~ A: ~a O~LED before ate by W. II. REL IIOliSE, about six tare a half hands high, with a bsae~h l~ea raised at fifty duilars. - -ij, c. W.asY hamburg, Janl 23 . 4 White Lead, Listsee4 MtP OIL, NEATS FOOT-OIL ~RS.OIL, for sale next !oor. to SULL3~VA#. -'