^^•%. . . ^ .^ o> '^r. ';. '' ,•* .,'?-■ '^■r^r >' ^^' "- v^-^ V v*^- .^^ .^^^^■ ^>, ,<•':• , V 1 » * y' 0^ ^^ -V ,■ \- ■s^^- : ^<^-^^ V „v>' -^ ^^^''-%< \\^ /^ ■^^^^ %.r- V •^^ ,11, -^ ' O o >. • •s*' .^^' '"^^.^ ■\^' ^ .^ ^. > _-. ^ .0' 'i'r N " \X" VV " -^y- ,.x 5>.^X^ .^ .0- "^^ - /: ■o- X x^' -r^ :(\ -^J X ^ ■ -^. ' ' x^ ->. ^x rO' C^^ '^P. .^^' ■"'^, ,o •^, » . '^ '. , ■/- ♦ ^ o. *A„V .**.^ v^ ', ' ■ :■% •IS ■^"^^ -<' \^^ « ,0^ " .■i, ■/> - V. * s •/>. '" -^ oV ''', *> * . V >•>, " V aO o. U > ■ '■ ♦ /b "-^'j^ 0^ .\V ,x^'<^ X>' ^^'"'/'C;, "' C>- ^x^^' :^' - %.4> ;, vX .vx^''%. /■ .-^^^ 1 , 'x*^ x^ ^C ->. 0' X'^ , •- * « A C^^ 0> s •> • „ " , -^ X' "^. "-^ 0^ ",/ x^^ - ■.^■\. >.,*' .vXV '^ .^^'' ^0^ X ^« ..•^* ON €l)c Bounliarg BETWEEN GEORGIA AND SOUTH CAROLINA. PRINTED AT THE SOUTHERN BANNER OFFICE 1852. @ r T^^-^ i s)fe r rs >(sissssLm> < >n^ yo EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, MiLLEDGEVILLE, 18th Oct., 1852. To His Excellency, Governor Means, Governor of the State of South Carolina : Sir : — I receivea, through Col. Hajne, Attorney General of your State, your communication, callino- my attention to the question of the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia over the Savannah River. On the 25th August I had an interview with Col. Hayne, which led to his communication of the 10th of September, furnishing me with his report to your Ex cellency on the subjects embraced in this question of jurisdiction. I have been prevented from making an earlier reply, and now write under circumstances unfa- vorable to as full an investigation of the subject as I had intended. The difficulties which have heretofore existed be- tween the South Carolina Rail Road Company and the city of Augusta, about the crossing of the Savannah River at Augusta by that Company, are the causes al- ledged for the necessity of this investigation — and those causes being removed by an amicable arrange- ment between the parties in interest, it would seem al- most unnecessary to pursue the inquiry. The question of the jurisdiction of the Savannah River, however, is 2 of much Importance to the State of Georgia, and should not rpiiiain in doubt a day longer than is necessary for a proper and permanent decision of it — and I shall, therefore, comply most readily with my promise to Col. Hayne, to submit to your Excellency my views on that subject, with the reasons which have brought my mind to the conclusions lo which it has arrived. The question is, Has the State of Georgia jurisdic- tion over the whole of the Savannah River 1 In other words, where is the boundary line between South Car- olina and Georgia ? On the part of Georgia it is con- sidered that the Savannah River is included within her hmits — whilst it is contended by Col. Hayne, on the part of South Carolina, that the middle of the most northern stream is the true boundary line between the States — thus claiming for S. Carolina the same rights, in refer- ence to that stream, as are granted to Georgia, except where the stream divides — in such cases it is admitted that the right of Georgia extends to the middle of the northern branch. The solution of this question must be found in the proper answer to the three following propositions : First — What was the boundary of Georgia in this respect, as estabhshed by her charter in 1832 ? Second — What construction has been placed upon the language used in the charter by the parties in in- terest ? Third — W^hat powers and rights have been exer- cised under that charter, and the uniform construction placed upon it I It is strange that there should be any difficulty in as- certaining the precise language of the charter of 1732 ; and yet the whole argument of Col. Hayne rests upon 3 a misappreliension of the language of that charter, as I shall endeavor to show: an error into which he very naturally fell, as he finds his authorities in our books. I here insert an extract from the charter of 1732 to show the language employed in describing the boundary and the extent to which it was intended to aj)ply. It is as follow s : " And whereas, the said corporation intend to settle a colony, and to make an habitation and plantation on that part of our province of South Carolina, in Amer- ica, hereafter described. Know ye, that we greatly de- siring the happy success of the said corporation, for their further encouragement in accomplishing so ex- cellent a work, have, of our foresaid grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, given and granted and by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, do give and grant to the said corporation and their successors, under the reservation, limitation and declaration here- after expressed, seven undivided parts, the whole in eight equal parts to be divided, of all those lands, coun- try and territories, situate, lying and being in that part of South Carohna, in America, which lies from the most northern part of a stream, or river there, com- monly^ called the Savannah, all along the seacoast to the southwards, to the southern stream ol a certain oth- er great water or river, called the Altamaha, and west- wardly from the heads of the said rivers respectively in direct hnes to the South seas." — Schley s Digest, p. 435. If the above extract be correct, it puts an end to all controversy on this subject — nothing can be clearer or more conclusive. By this provision of the charter of 1832, the boundary Una between South Carolina and Georgia is to be found " at the most northern part'' of the river Savannah. I apprehend that no one will en- tertain the proposition for a moment, that '*the most 4 northern part" of a river is to be found in the middle of either the main stream, or where the stream di- vides, in the middle of the northern branch of it. Up- on that point I shall offer no argument, feeling well satisfied that the question will be readily yielded, if it can be made satisfactory to appear that the language which I have quoted from the charter, is the correct version of that instrument. After the most dihgent in- quiry, which circumstances have permitted me to make, I have been able to find the charter of 1832, given in extenso, only in the following works : Schley's Digest, 429; Hotchkiss' Statute Laws of Georgia and State Papers — 20; McCall's History of Georgia — 1 vol., 329; Stevens' History of Georgia — 1 vol., 476. In each of these books the charter will be found in full, setting forth the boundaries of the colony, as I have already quoted from Schley's Digest, It seems to me that the fact, that the charter wherever found in full, contains the same language, should be regarded as con- clusive evidence of its correctness, and it ought not to be questioned upon the authority of mere extracts from the original instrument. In this connection I will refer as briefly as possible to the authorities relied upon by Col. Hayne in sup- port of the proposition, that the boundary of Georgia is limited to the middle of the northern stream of the Savannah river. He says: "It was in 1730 that Lord Percival, James Ogle- thorpe and others, petitioned the Crown for the estab- lishment of a colony in South Carolina. In the re- port on this petition to the Lords of the Privy Coun- cil of December in that year, the boundary recommen- ded, was 'the most navigable and largest branches of the Savanjiah." — IVatkins Digest, p. 729. "In another report to the Privv Counci', ';ihoiit set- tUng a western houndary to the colon} in fc^onth C'ar- ohna in 1731,' the territory is spoken of as 'l)etueen the rivers Savannah and Akauiaha.'" — Watkins Di- gest, p. 730. It is a sufficient reply to any ar^^unient to he drawn from these references to say, that tlie houndary icas not established, as recommended hy either of these reports. This fact is admitted by C(d. Hayne, who seeks to show that the language of the charter is " from the northern stream of a river commonly called the Savan- nah," &c. &c. Tiie truth is, that a very strong Infer- ence can legitimately be drawn from the several re- ports made by the Board of Trade to the Lords of the Piivy Council (from which Col. Hayne bas taken the above extracts) in favor of the claim of Georgia to the whole of the Savannah river. It will be found upon an investigation of that matter, that on each occasion when the reports were referred back to the Board of Trade, the reference was accompanied with instruc- tions to make the report more favorable to the petition- ers, on the very question of their proposed boundaries, and hence it is that we find the boundaries, as finally granted in the charter, more liberal to Georgia than was at first proposed. It is more than probable that much of the misapprehenston on this subject has grown out of the difference between these very reports, and the charter itself, as it was in fact granted. The next authority relied upon by Col. Hayne is thus referred to by him : "In the charter of George II, 1732, creating Lord Percival, Oglethorpe and others, ' Trustees for estab- lishing the colony of Georgia in America,' the descrip- tion of the grant is in these words: — 'All those lands, 6 countries aii(] tiTritories. situate, Iviun; and being in that part ol South Carolina, in America, which hes trom the northern stream ot a river tiiere, commonly called the Sa>'annah, all along the seacoast to the southward unto the most southern stream of a certain other great river called the Altamaha.'" — Watkins Digest, y. 731. It is upon this version of the cliarter, as taken from Watkins' Digest, that the argument is based, in favor of the claim of South Carolina to the middle of the Sa- vannah river. I have already stated tliat it differs from the language employed in all the books where the charter is given in extemo. I have no doubt it w^as obtained by Watkins from a report made to Congress in 1796, by Charles Lee, Attorney (jeneral, in compli- ance with a resolution oi Congress, which required him " to collect, digest and report to the next Congress the charters, treaties ond other documents relative to, and explanatory of, the title to the land situate in the south- western parts of the United States," &c. &c. It wall not be contended, I trust, that a digested extract pre- parAl by Mr. Lee, and furnished to him from ii printed copy by Mr. Chalmers, of the " Office of Trade at Whitehead," should stand as authority against the ex- plicit language of the charter, as contained in every work which professes to give that charter in full. The argument of Col. Hayne proceeds to refer to his next authorities in the following language : "In Watkins' Digest, page 732, there appears what purports to be ' an extract trom a state of the prov- ince of Georgia in 1740,' which contains the expres- sions of the charter \from. the most northern stream of the river Savannah.' The ' surrender by the trustees of Georgia to the King of all their rights under the cliar- ter,' dated in 17.02, uses si?nilar hmguaiTe. 'J'be 7 coimnission to Ciovcrnor llcvuolds in 17"; I, rlcscrihes the bouiuiary in tlusanic way ; ami again, in tlieconi- n)ission to (iovernor Wright in 17()4, wo lind "oiir col- ony of Georgia, in America,' describeil as ' lying //Y>m the most northern stream of a river there, commonly called the Savannah,' " Sic. I have given these extracts at length for the pur- pose not only of doing the most ample justice to C'ol. Hayne, but also for the purpose of calling your atten- tion to the striking fact, that the language used in the difi'ereut extracts vary from each other, as well as from the language of the charter itself, as 1 have before giv- en it, thus showing that these extracts arc nothing more than a mere analysis, w liich does not profess to give the exact language of the charter ; and certainly none of them were ever prepared in reference to being made the basis of an argument, to set aside the plain and manifest language of an instrument of which they pro- fess to be, notbing more than an analysis or recital. — This remark is peculiarly true of these last extracts, which I have quoted. The surrender by the trustees of Georgia, in 1752, contains a recital of a portion of the charter of 1732, and from that recital the forego- ing extract was made. In such an instrument perfect accuracy was neither desired nor contemplated, and hence we find language used which was considered by the authors as expressive of the same idea, though no- in the same words of the charter. In my examination of this subject I have found a very pointed and striking proof of the fact, that the language employed in these various extracts, was regarded by the authors as mean- ing the same thing as the language used in the charter itself. McCall in his history of Georgia, as already re- ferred to, gives the charter in full, and correctly ; and 8 yet ill speaking of this subject, as will be found on the lOth page of the same volume, uses the very language of tlie extracts relied upon by Col. Hayne — that is, " which lies from the most northern stream of a river there called Savannah," &c. Could a more forcible illustration be given, than the one here furnished, of the justice of my criticism ? and am I not warranted in accounting for these apparently conflicting authorities upon the hypothesis tiiat the term, "most northern stream," was used as synonymous with " the most northern part of a stream?" McCall certainly relied upon the correctness of the charter which he published — and if, with that charter before him, he uses the same language with the trustees in their surrender, it can on- ly be accounted for upon the hypothesis I have stated. The commissions to Governor Reynolds and Gov- ernor Wright very naturally followed the recital of the surrender in language as they did in time, and do not therefore require additional comment. Having now reviewed all the authorities relied upon to ascertain the boundary of Georgia, as established by the charter, I feel justified in concluding that the lan- guage used in the charter, as given in full by Schley^ Hotchkiss, McCali and Stevens, is the true and correct version of that instrument, and that, therefore, the boun- dary of Georgia extends to "the most northern part of the Savannah," and includes, of necessity, the whole of that river within her jurisdiction. If, however, there should still exist doubts as to the exact language of the charter, we are certainly well founded in the conclu- sion that the invariable construction placed upon the term " the most northern stream," &c., rendered it sy- nonymous with the other language contended for by 9 Georo-ia. In either event the rijrht of Georjiia to the whole of the river is well founded, unless surrendered by some subsequent act, and I now proceed to exam- ine that branch of the subject. It is urged against the claim of Georgia to (he Savan- nah River that, by the treaty of Beaufort, she has as- sented to the Savannah River as a boundary line, and yielded any claim which she might have held under the original charter. From that opinion I dissent. I am aware that there is a prevailing idea that this question was settled by the Convention of Beaufort. A care- ful examination of the subject, however, will show that such is not the fact — and that the treaty of Beaufort left the question of the jurisdiction over the Savannah River just where they found it. and very properly so, for it was not submitted to them, and constituted no part of the controversy which led to that Convention. By that Convention certain rights of navigation on the Savannah River were granted to Carolina, and nothing more. A controversy of an exciting charac- ter had grown up between South Carolina and Geor- gia, in reference to certain territory which was involv- ed in the question of boundary between the two States. Carolina made an appeal to the Congress of the Uni- ted States on the subject, which led to the appointment of commissioners on the part of the two States, who met and, on the 28th April, 1787, concluded the Con- vention of Beaufort for the settlement of the questions of difference, which had been submitted to them. To a correct understanding of that treaty, its bearings and effect, we must look to the reasons assigned for its as- semblage, and the questions submitted to its decision, — For that purpose I call your attention to the preamble 10 of the Convention, in which is set forth, with much care and precision, the purposes for which it met. It is as follows : " Whereas, the State of South Carolina did hereto- fore present a petition to the Unitcid States in Con- gress assembled, and did therein set forth, tiiat a dis- })ute and diiference had arisen and subsisted between the States of South Carolina and Georgia concerning boundaries; and the States claiming respectively the same territories, and that the case and claims of the State of South Carolina was as j'ollows, that is to say : • Charles the II, King of Great Britain, by charter da- ted th<^ 24th day of March, in the fifteenth year of his reigM, granted to eight persons as therein named, as lords proprietors thereof, all the lands lying and be- ing within his dominions of America, between thirtv- one and thirty-six degrees of south latitude, in a direct west line to the South Seas, styling the lands so de- scribed ' The Province of Carolina :" That on the tliirtieth day of June, in the seventeenth year of his reign, the said King granted to the said lords proprie- tors a second charter, enlarging the bounds of Caroli- na, viz: fiom twenty-nine degrees of north latitude to thirty-six degrees, thirty minutes, and from those points on the sea coast west in a direct line to the South Seas: That seven of the said proprietors of Carolina SDid and surrendered to George the II, late King of G. Britain, al! their title and interest in the said Province, and the share of the remaining ])roprietor was separa- ted trom the King's, and allotted to him in the north pnrt of North Carolina : That Carolina was afterwards d.vided into two provinces, called North and South Carolina: That by a charter dated the ninth day of June, George the II, King of (ireat Britain, granted to certain persons therein named, all the lands lying be- tween the rivers Savannah and Altamaha, and between lines to be drawn from the heads of those rivers, re- spectively, to the South Sea, and st} led the said colony 11 ' Georgia :' That h\ a treaty of peace, concluded at Paris on the tenth day of February, one thousand sev- en hundred and sixty-three, the river Mississippi was declared to be the western boundary of the North American Colonies: That the Governor of South Car- olina, in the year one thousand seven hundred and sixty, conceivins: that the lands southward of the Al- taniaha still belonj^ed to South Carolina, granted sev- eral tracts of the said lands: That the government of Georgia complained to the King of Great Britain, re- specting those grants as l)eing for lands \\ithin its lim- its, and therefore His Majesty, by proclamation, dated the seventh day of October, one thousand seven hun- dred and sixty-three, annexed to Georgia ail the lands lying between the rivers Altamaha and St. Marys, the validity of the grants passed by the Governor of South Carolina as aforesaid, remaining, liowever, acknowl- edged and uncontested, and the grantees of said land, or their representatives, still holding it as their le^al estate: lymt South Carolina claims iJie lands hj'ng heticeeri the Notth Carolina line, and the line run due west j rum the mouth of the 2\igalo River to the Missis- sijjpi, because, as the said State contends, the rirer Sa- vannah loses that naine at the conjluence of Tu>ivu riglit ot" tiie State of Georgia/" — .1/. ty C. Digest,]). 664. It -is claimed that the first of the foregoing articles settled the bouiidarv between the two States, to which I reply that the prcanihle to tlie Convention which pnr- portsto give the reasons for its assemblage, shows that the bonndaries in this res])ect was not a mooted question. So far as we are informed, either by documents or tra- dition, there was no serious difference of opinion on this point between the two States, and the insertion of this article in the treaty can only be regarded as a declara- tion in favor of the boundary line, as claimed by Geor- gia, nnd acquiesced ifihy Carolina. The language us- ed in this article differs from that found in the charter as published i/i extenso. It also differs iVom the extract as published in Watkins, as well as from the act of the Legislature of 1785 ; yet it is virtually the same as that used by McCall, and by the trustees of Georgia in their surrender of their charter to the King, which I have shown was regarded as synonymous with the terms of the original charier. We shall see hereafter strong confirmatory evidence of the correctness of this view. If this first article w as intended to alter the boundary line, and change it from the ''moat northern part of the river" to the middle of the stream, it might be well asked where was the necessity for the second article of the treaty, which is quoted above f The ob- jectof this article under the construction which 1 have placed upon the Convention, is manifest; It confers the right of navigation of the Savaiuiah River upon the citizens of South Carolina, which, it seems, was not previously possessed by them. Under a difterent 15 construction, however, ot" the Convention, and one which would make the ujiddle of the f^avannah Kiver the houndary line, this .-"ecoud article would heconie nu- gatory, and we should be unable to assign a satisfactory reason tor its consideration. The inquiry may arise, upon tliis view oftlie treaty of Beaufort, why was the lirst article of this treaty in- serted in it if it was no!: intended to dehne the boun- dary line between the two States along the stream of the Savannah l\iver ? A n)ost satisfactory answer to such an inquiry is furnished by the language of the preamble to the Convention. That preamble, as be- fore quoted, set forth as a part of the claim of South Carolina, " That South Carolina claims the lands lvin«: between the North Carolina line, and the line run due west from the mouth of Tugalo River to the Missis- sippi, because, as the said State contends, the river Sa- vannah loses that name at the conjluence of Tugalo and Kewoee Rivers, consequently that spot is the head of Savannah River.'' Thus it will be seen that this iirst article was inserted to dispose of the claim of South Carolina to the lands lying above the confluence of the Tugalo and Keowee Rivers. That claim constituted Me a/z/?/^^/;^^ of difference between the two States, connected with the Savannah River, and this article aajusts and disposes of that matter. This reference show^s, as indeed do all the circumstances connected with that Convention, that the claim of Georgia, as it then existed, " to the north side of the Savannah Riv- er," was a conceded point, and not involved in the mooted questions which had led to, and were then ad- justed by the treaty of Beaufort. The position then taken by Carolina, and upon 16 which she founded her claim to the lands in dispute, forecloses the argument now offered in her hehalf to an equal jurisdiction over the waters of the Savannah River. If she was right at that time in assorting that the Savannah River terminated at the confluence of the Tugalo and Keowee Rivers, upon the correctness of which assertion her whole claim in this respect vest- ed, then it is not true, as now contended hj her, that the terms of the charter of 1832, to wit — "northern stream," or "the most northern stream," or "the most northern part of a stream commonly called the Savannah," was intended to apply to that part of the river where it divided, for below the confluence there was but one stream. The only satisfactory solution of this rjiatter is to be found in that uniform construction of the charter of 1732, which gives to Georgia the whole of the Savannah River. Mr. John Houstoun, one of the commissioners on the part of Georgia, refused to sign the Convention of Beaufort, and in his protest appended to the treaty, (M. & C. Digest, p. QG6y) places his refusal upon two grounds. The first it is unnecessary to consider, as it has no reference to the subject of our present investiga- tion. The second, however, bears directly upon it, and exhibits not only the opinion, held by Mr. Houstoun in reference to our boundary, but also shows, by clear and unavoidable inference, that no such construction was placed upon the first article of the treaty by the commissioners who made it, as now contended for by those who seek to limit the boundary of Georgia to a thread in the middle of the river. In this protest Mr. Houstoun says : " Secondly. As to the free navigation of the river Sa- 17 vannah now given up to South Carolina, I conceive this point is, in the first place, not an object of our com- mission ; but if it was, however disposed I might be always to wish an indulgence to a sister State on this head, (which I belive has hitherto been the case,) yet I am not inclined to give that indulgence the color of a right. Were we settling commercial regulations with South Carohna, to permit the free navigation of the river, it might be just and proper, and the title then would depend on and be derived from such agreement ; but to yield this point as a claim, in the present in- stance, implies that the right has been ab origine in South Carolina. Such a position would be inconsis- tent with my idea of our boundary ; for if we hold the sovereignty "from the most northern part of the stream," it seems to me the exclusive right of navigation fol- lows of course. This is neither a forced or new con- struction of our charter, but has uniformly been the opinion, for a series of years past, of most people in Georgia ; and all the documents adduced tend only to show the point has been contested, but never decided on. On the whole, although I should be amongst the foremost to concede to this neighborly privilege, in re- turn for some other perhaps less valuable to the citizens of South Carolina, yet I should wish to see it hela by them as a grant, under some restrictions, from Geor- gia, and not a right proved and established at the pres- ent meeting." — M. &{ C. Digest, p, QQQ-6Q1. From the language here used by Mr. Houstoun, it will be observed that he was extremely tenacious of the right of Georgia to her boundary line, as set forth in the act of her Legislature of 1783; and believing that the right of navigation granted to Caroluia by the second article of the treaty, conflicted with that right, he refuses to sign the Convention. He does not consider the declaration of the boundary line, as set forth in the first article, as^at all objectionable — at least 18 he makes no objection to it ; and had he regarded it as altering the boundary Hne of the State, he would doubtless have incorporated it in his protest, as an ad- ditional and more weighty reason for his refusal to sign the treaty. It is very clear to my mind that neither Mr. Houstoun, nor any other member of that Conven- tion, placed upon the first article of the treaty the con- struction now sought to be put upon it. This protest of Mr. Houstoun was drawn up when he was fresh from the discussions of the Convention, when he had heard the views presented by the commissioners on both sides. If, on the part of Carolina, it had been claimed, or on the part of Georgia conceded, that the boundary line between the two States had been alter- ed by the first article of the treaty, he would never have omitted from his protest so important an item. His mind, as is shown by the extract I have given, was directed to this particular point, and the only objection he files to this part of the treaty, grows out of the pro- visions of the second, and not the first article. It is, however, alone upon the provisions of the^/-5^ article that the argument is now based, to sustain the position that, by that Convention, Georgia assented to a change in her boundary line, from the " most northern part" to " the middle of the Savannah river." I apprehend that the argument will not now be changed, and the right of Carolina made to rest upon the second article of the treaty. If, however, it should be attempted, it will be a sufficient reply to say, that all the rights and immunities granted to Carolina by that second article will be sacredly observed by Georgia. — They extend to the right of navigation^ and no farther. 19 The boundary line for all other purposes than those of navigation remains unchanged and unaffected. If additional arguments were required to sustain the views, which I have here presented in favor of the claim of Georgia to the whole of the Savannah river, they would be furnished in the fact that the right of juris- diction over that river has not only been exercised without question or hindrance, for a number of years, but has been acquiesced in by South Carolina. I am not aware that on any occasion Carolina has serious- ly questioned this right, so long claimed and exercised ; but I find in the Congressinnal history of the country, conclusive evidence of her acquiescence in the exercise of it by Georgia. In 1790 Congress passed an act au- thorizing Georgia to lay a duty on tonnage for the pur- pose of clearing out certain obstructions in the Savan- nah river. Similar acts were passed in 1791 and '92. These acts were passed without objection on the part of South Carolina, as well as without her assent, which would not have been the case had the right of jurisdic- tion over the Savannah river by Georgia, been ques- tioned, or doubted, either by Congress or South Car- olina. Acts of the same character were passed by Congress again in the years 1800, 1808, 1814, and 1822, and I have yet to learn of any objections being interposed on the part of South Carolina, to these se- ries of legislative recognitions of the claim of Georgia to the whole of the Savannah river. It is worthy of remark, that during the years 1790, 1791 and 1792, Mr. Pierce Butler, one of the commissioners on the part of South Carolina, of the Convention of Beaufort, was a member of the U. S. Senate. This acquiescence in those acts affords convincing proof, not only that in 20 his opinion the boundary line of Georgia extended to the northern part of the Savannah river, as contained in the charter of 1732, but that the construction which I have placed upon the treaty of Beaufort, is the cor- rect one. Mr. Butler was at that time fresh from the dehberations of the Beaufort Convention, and was pe- culiarly quahfied to protect the rights of his State in this regard, if he had considered the passage of these various acts as an infringement of those rights. Know- ing, however, as he did, that the right of navigation on the part of South Carolina, would not be injured, and that no other right in this respect had been ac- quired by that Convention, he very properly acqui- esced in the justice and propriety of these enactments. It may, however, be argued that these acts of Con- gress do not conflict with the right of South Carolina as now put forth. Mr. Desassure, one of your Senators in Congress, thinks otherwise. I notice in the debates of the last session of Congress, that when a similar en- actment was proposed by one of the Senators from Georgia, it was objected to by Mr. Desassure, on the ground that South Carolina claimed equal jurisdiction with Georgia over the Savannah River, thus showing that the objections on the part of South Carolina to these enactments of Congress, commenced pari passu with her claim. When there was no claim there was n^ objection. They are both of a modern date, and I sincerely trust will be of short duration. Reference is made by Col. Hayne to the language of the Constitution of Georgia of 1798, and an agree- ment is drawn from the fact, that it varies from the lan- guage of the act of the Legislature of 1783. Not only does it vary from that act, but also from the language 21 of the charter of 1732, as well as the language of the Convention of Beaufort, which is confirmatory of the view I have presented, that these different terms of expression, under the uniform construction placed upon them, were regarded and used as synonymous. The true meaning of them is to be ascertained from the co- temporaneous and unvarying construction of them. The view which I have taken and presented of this subject, renders it unnecessary for me to controvert that portion of the able argument of Col. Hayne, which discusses the general principles of law, bearing upon the construction of the terms employed in the various documents under consideration. In the absence of the more practical and satisfactory proofs which I have ad- duced, we might with propriety fall back upon these abstract principles, but in the present instance such a resort is unnecessary, I conclude, therefore, that the claim of Georgia to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Savannah River is not as " groundless" as it has been supposed to be. It rests as I have shown — First, Upon the plain and explicit language of the charter of 1732, as it is found in every hook in which it is given in extenso ; Secondly, Upon the undisputed and undisturbed enjoyment and exercise of the right for a great number of years ; Thirdly, Upon the uniform and unvarying construc- tion placed upon the various terms of expression used to define her boundary line ; Fourthly, Upon the acquiescence of South Caroli- na in the assertion and exercise of this right, as shown by her long silence and virtual assent to the acts of Congress referred to ; 22 Fifthly, By all the circumstances connected with the early history of the question, and the action of the two States, in reference to kindred questions, growing out of and dependent for their settlement upon the con- struction of the same instrument, which originates this one. Upon a careful review of the subject I entertain the hope that your Excellency will be satisfied that the claim of Georgia is well founded, and that her "long undisturbed possession should not now be questioned." In reference to the rights and privileges, claimed by the city of Augusta as owner of the bridge at that place, I must regard them as questions more properly apper- taining to the Judicial Department. At any rate I do not see that any good can result from an Executive discussion on that point. If it is contemplated to fa- cilitate the intercouse between the citizens of the two States at Augusta, by making the bridge free, it be- comes a question for Legislative consideration, and will, by this notice of it, be brought to the attention of the next General Assembly. I concur most fully in the views presented by Col. Hayne, for encouraging the freest commercial inter- course between the citizens of South Carolina and Georgia. Whatever may be the opinions of the ma- jority of our citizens on that subject, I am prepared to give my cordial co-operation to any and every move- ment, which has for its object the extension of the prin- ciples of free trade, whether applied to the intercourse of the citizens of neighboring States, or extended to the world at large- The fewer the restrictions placed upon commerce the better for the country ; and the prniciple is right, whether limited to small communities 23 or extended to the commercial intercourse ot the world. How far the General Assembly of this State will be disposed to go in granting the unUmited right of build- ing bridges across the Savannah River, I am not pre- pared to say. The effect which the building of such bridges might have upon the navigation of the river, would have much weight in determining their policy in this respect — and my information on that point is not sufficient to justify the expression of any opinion on the subject. Allow me, in conclusion, to express my own desire, as well as that of our citizens, that the future relations between South Carohna and Georgia, shall be of that kind and fraternal character which should ever mark the intercourse of two States, so identified in feehng and interest. In conformity with the suggestion of Col. Hayne's letter, I shall lay this correspondence before the Gener- Assembly of this State at its next regular session. I have the honor to be your Excellency's ob't serv't, HOWELL COBB. \' V ■' ^^ '". C' \.<^" r^^ ■'. --y .^^'• A'^ -'P '^n o > o^ -^ X" •''^ •^ ♦ « 1 V \V V , ■% .^'^' V-^^ .^'^• A^ A\^ c"^ '■ * '<*. y-*^ V . 1?-^ .0- ^ ' " i '•', .s^H ■-3. ' ./ '. •'<:• <■-. ■ i' V- ,^\ •' ■ -f^ ■ 0- v'- ^^ .^>' c,^ 'P. •'o V ^' V 'c .0' x-^* ^\^ .^v -by \' -' .^^' vN^ V^^ .0^ >°-'* ■^^"^ '% ':>r:'f--\^ f^^'. ■*•, a\ K '^^ ..V ■^^" ■,\'' "o V V .: ..^-^ V i' . ^ ^ "'civ ^ , t - ,^ •\^ ^^■ ^\^ c or •\\" V\ .V^ •^■, .<-.- ^^'\ * .A ^^ -;. .^ r >.7:^: 0' o4 <^^^ >V- vv , "^^c:^^ ^^'\ •J ■, >. ' ,'\ ^ -^^ '^. c,*^'" \X' ^^ ,Va^ ^" '/•. .0 .^ ^.^ c,*^ '^y^.