T C 07/)^ REPORT of the Committee on Proceedings to Take Possession of the COLUMBIA CANAL, ETC. UNDER ACT OF MARCH 12,1917 and MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE THOS. H. PEEPLES, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina. HUGER SINKLER, Chairman of Judiciary Committee of Senate. JESSE W. BOYD, Chairman Judiciary Committee of House of Representatives. NIELS CHRISTENSEN, Chairman Finance Committee of Senate. J. T. LILES, Chairman Ways and Means Committee of House of Repre¬ sentatives. Gonzales and Bryan, State Printers Columbia, S. 0. 1917-18 Oass.n r .C' 6 & 5" / ■■ f. -r % • \ I , 1 4 } I i* •I • t . . • i » • r-' fs- . ' • I"' “ - *7F .: ' c.' . r '* ' -• V‘ , ' / » » . Af, '•' V ’’c. ^ ’ • • - •> •« ft . * c ; \ • K 0 tjH % ;r i ; !• j t • • • ; ^ r. .* ' * "• • f .. jk • "l » f < t • - , I . (J / ■ ' ,V:(’ ' f J‘ ( • •-> ) ) 1 r - I. \ a* rf t -. ;k \ / REPORT of the Committee on Proceedings to Take Possession of the COLUMBIA CANAL, ETC. UNDER ACT OF MARCH 12,1917 and MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE THOS. H. PEEPLES, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina. HUGER SINKLER, Chairman of Judiciary Committee of Senate. JESSE W. BOYD, Chairman Judiciary Committee of House of Representatives. NIELS CHRISTENSEN, Chairman Finance Committee of Senate. J. T. LILES, Chairman Ways and Means Committee of House of Repre¬ sentatives. Gonzales and Bryan, State Printers Columbia, S. C. 1917-18 TC 0. of D. MAR 23 1918 \ : REPORT OF THE CANAL COMMISSION TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF SOUTH CAROLINA. . To the General Assembly of South Carolina, Columbia, S. C., January 8, 1918. To the Honorable the General Assembly of South Carolina: Pursuant to the provisions of an Act entitled ‘‘An Act to declare that the Columbia Canal and its appurtenances, and the interest of the State in and to the Columbia Canal, authorized to be tranS' ferred under an Act entitled ‘An Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with the lands now held therewith, and its appur¬ tenances, and to develop the same,’ approved December 24, 1887, and Acts supplemental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State by reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions contained in said Acts, and to provide provisions relating to the operation, management, control, disposal or sale of said canal,” approved the 12th day of March, 1917, we, the Attorney General, the Chairmen of the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, designated by Section 2 of said Act, held an informal meeting on the 22d day of March, 1917. There¬ after, on the 2d day of April, 1917, the Commission met and organ¬ ized by the election of Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney General, as Chairman, and the Hon. J. T. Liles, as Secretary. Under and by the provisions of Section 2 of the said Act the officers above referred to are empowered, authorized and directed, or a majority of them, ninety days after the approval of the Act, to make such re-entry for and on behalf of the State as may be necessary and proper under the circumstances, and to take such steps as may be lawful and proper in the premises to obtain possession and control of the property of the said Columbia Canal, its appur¬ tenances and the lands held therewith and other improvements placed thereon by those in possession, which had become a part and parcel of said canal, unless the claimants enter into arrangements 4 satisfactory to said officers as herein provided; and further, to take such possession, control and direction of the development of the water power, originally contemplated in said Acts, and to dis¬ pose of same in such way as they may deem advisable and proper. Section 3 of the said Act directs the Attorney General, at the time provided for the re-entry, or thereafter, to commence such proceedings as he may deem proper and advisable in any of the Courts of the State to assert the right of the State in and to said canal property and the structures and improvements placed thereon, which had become a part of said canal, and for the further pro¬ tection of said canal from injury and neglect by keeping the same in proper condition or repair. He is further empowered and author¬ ized to bring such action for damages as the State has suffered by reason of the failure of the assignees and conveyees of the Board of Trustees of said property to perform the conditions contained in said Acts relative to the Columbia Canal and in the several con¬ veyances thereafter made to them from the Board of Trustees, and the Attorney General was authorized to employ such counsel to assist him in carrying out the provisions of this Act with regard to bringing such action or in any other action contemplated by this Act as he may deem advisable, such counsel to be subject to the approval of a majority of the officers mentioned in Section 2. Section 5 of the Act provides that the Attorney General and other officers therein mentioned, who are authorized to take charge and control of the canal, have full power and authority to enter into such arrangements or agreements with the parties claiming to have any right, title or interest in the premises as they may deem advisable and proper to protect the interest of the State, the same, however, to be made within ninety days from the approval of this Act, and report the same to the General Assembly at its next regular session. Section 6 authorizes the officers, for the protection of the inter¬ est of the State, to receive and make propositions ^or the disposal of the canal and its appurtenances and improvements and the lands held therewith, or for the completion thereof by any one taking over or holding the same according to the plans heretofore specified, or upon such modified plans as they deem advisable, and for the purpose of extending and completing the said canal to insure adequate connection with and into the Congaree River, for the purpose of navigation, as well as the development of water power, they are authorized to employ competent engineers for 5 their information and action with regard to the management and disposal of the canal. They are further authorized to enter into such arrangements with the mortgage bondholders of the Columbia Canal as would protect the interest of the State and the interest of said bondholders, such agreements, or arrangements, or action as they may deem advisable with regard thereto not to be in conflict with any constitutional obligations of the State made by the Acts heretofore passed with regard to the issuing of said bonds and the mortgaging of said property. Section 7 of the Act authorizes said officers, or a majority of them, to enter into and conclude negotiations with the United States Government that will fully insure and protect the naviga^ bility of the Columbia Canal from the Congaree to Broad River, and in the event such arrangements be consummated, are author¬ ized and directed to convey to the United States Government all rights, equities, title and interest in the said property which the State owns and upon such terms as they may deem proper, and the agreement on the part of the United States to locate and main¬ tain and operate on the Congaree River, near Columbia, a Federal Nitrogen Fixation Plant, and the further agreement of the United States Government to promote and conserve the navigability of the said Columbia Canal in conformity with the terms of said agree¬ ment. In accordance with the resolution adopted at the informal meet¬ ing of the Commission on March 22, 1917, and preparatory to its permanent organization, the Attorney General addressed communi¬ cations to the following named parties, who are interested in the Columbia Canal property: Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, Columbia, S. C. Hon. A. K. Sanders, Superintendent of the South Carolina Peni¬ tentiary, Columbia, S. C. Hon. Lewie A. Griffith, Mayor, and Members of the City Council, Columbia, S. C. Loan & Exchange Bank of Columbia, South Carolina, or its Successor or Successors, Columbia, S. C. Farmers Loan & Trust Company, New York, N. Y. These communications and the answers thereto appear in the minutes of the Commission, hereto annexed. At a meeting of the Commission, held on April 2, 1917, Mr. B. L, Abney and Mr. J. Fraser Lyon, attorneys of the Columbia bar, upon invitation of the Commission, appeared before us. The 6 employment of these gentlemen to assist the Attorney General was duly approved by the Commission, and they have discharged the duties imposed upon them. In undertaking to carry out the provisions of the Act we have been confronted with very serious difficulties by having neither appropriation nor authority to borrow money or incur liability. We have been unable to have a survey of the canal made by com¬ petent engineers and have had no authority to compel the attend¬ ance of witnesses and the production of books and papers for the purpose of accurately ascertaining how the canal has been hereto¬ fore managed. We are satisfied, however, that the canal has, from some time prior to 1905, up to 1915, as a source for supplying power to the industries in and around the city of Columbia, created an income largely in excess of its operating expenses, but since the construction of the Parr Shoals plant, hereinafter to be referred to, its contracts have been changed and its income has been exces¬ sively decreased to such an amount that it does not pay its neces¬ sary upkeep, so far as the returns of the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company show, all of which have been to the advantage of the Parr Shoals Company. We have, nevertheless, proceeded to discharge our duties as fully as was practicable notwithstanding the circumstances in the case. On the 17th day of April, 1917, Mr. J. B. S. Lyle?, representing the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, appeared before the Commission and made a statement on behalf of that corpora¬ tion in which he asked that additional time be allowed that cor¬ poration to '‘get down to some definite basis upon which to take up the matters under consideration with the Commission.” There¬ after, the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company made its proposal, which appears in the report oL our minutes hereto appended, and to which the careful attention of your Honorable Body is directed. It will be observed that in none of the letters addressed by that company to this Commission is there contained any ofifer or suggestion that the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company would comply with the conditions and stipulations con¬ tained in the Acts of 1887 and 1890, and in the deeds of conveyance to said property hereinafter mentioned. On the other hand, their proposal was to pay such an insignificant amount of money that this Commission could not entertain it, especially so in view of the fact that the proposal contained the provision that upon the State’s receiving the amount of money ofifered it should complete the canal 7 and turn the same over to the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company. It will also be noted that no proposal was made for keeping the canal open for navigation either for the part to be hereafter constructed down to Rocky Branch and into the Congaree River, or for that part which has been in existence since the con¬ veyance by the Board of Trustees to the Columbia Water Power Company, in 1892; nor is there any proposal to protect and main¬ tain the canal as a power producing plant, nor to construct power plants to develop said power for use as contemplated by the Act of 1887. While making such proposals to this Commission, the said corporation denied any liability whatsoever on its part to carry out any of the terms and provisions of the Act of the Legislature and of the conveyances hereinafter referred to and which was con¬ sidered essentially to the interest of the State and its citizens with regard to the navigability of said canal and the production of power. The Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, through its representative and counsel, announced that they had made their final and last proposal to the Commission, and the time prescribed by statute having elapsed, the proposals of the said company being entirely unsatisfactory, no arrangement or adjustment with this cor¬ poration could be or was entered into by this Commission. On the 10th day of August, 1917, we served a notice upon the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, making demand upon it for the possession and control of the Columbia Canal, the improvements thereon and appurtenances set forth in said Act, and gave notice that we would, on the 20th day of August, 1917, at twelve o’clock noon, make re-entry upon, on behalf of the State, and take possession and control of said property; that thereafter, on the 14th day of August, the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company,'by its attorneys, advised us that it denied in toto our claims concerning the Columbia Canal and warned and notified each of us to refrain from interfering with or trespassing upon its possession, management or control, notifying us that each of us would be held personally responsible for any interference with or trespass committed upon its property or possession. That company further claimed that the Act of 1917 was null and void, because it was in violation of the Constitution of the United States and of South Carolina. Being informed that the said corporation would forcibly resist a physical re-entry, and we being of the opinion that such re-entry 8 was made for and oii behalf of the State as was necessary and proper under the circumstances, no effort was made to take force- able possession thereof, and the Attorney General and his assist¬ ants were directed to take such steps as might be lawful in the premises to obtain possession and control of the property of said Columbia Canal, its appurtenances and the lands held therewith, and the improvements placed thereon by those in possession which have become a part and parcel of said canal, the claimants having failed to enter into arrangements satisfactory to us as provided in said Act. In pursuance of instructions issued by this Commission there¬ after, to wit: On the 11th day of December, 1917, an action entitled “The State of South Carolina, Plaintiff, against Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, a Jl^orporation Created by and Under the Laws of South Carolina, Defendant,” was commenced in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland county. South Carolina, for the purpose of obtaining possession of the said premises described in the Act of 1917, and for such income or rentals as the defendant may or should have received from withholding the same from the 20th day of August, 1917. Thereafter, and before the expiration of the time for answering the complaint, defendant served its notice upon counsel for the State that it would seek to remove the said cause from the juris¬ diction of the State Court and to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, upon the ground that such action arises under the Constitution of the United States, and that the Act, approved the 12th day of March, 1917, was an impairing of the contract of the Act of 1887 and deprived the defendant of its property without due process of law. In said petition for removal on this ground, the said petition being sworn to by the President of the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, Mr. Edwin W. Robertson, the following sentence appears: “That the said Act of 1917 and all acts and doings of the officers of said State of South Carolina thereunder are part and parcel of an effort to confiscate the property of this defendant and impair the obligation of his contract with said State in violation of the Constitution of the United States.” We content ourselves in reply to this suggestion by simply saying that such statement is an untrue aspersion of the motives of the General Assembly and of the motives and char¬ acter of the officers appointed under said Act to carry out its pro¬ visions. It is, however, entirely consistent with the conduct of the 9 defendant with regard to this property, refusing to fulfil its obli¬ gations and contract entered into by it with the State and its con- veyees, for the Journals and the Acts of the General Assembly will show that for more than ten years, commencing with a reso¬ lution passed at the General Assembly directing Governor Ansel to investigate the management and control of said canal, and also a further and later resolution, passed in 1911, asking for a further investigation into this matter upon the complaint of Ihe citizens of Spartanburg, Union, Fairfield, Lexington and Richland counties, with regard to the dereliction of this company in not fulfilling the obligations of its contract with the State, contained in the Acts and conveyances under which it claims to own, control and manage the canal property. Further, there was introduced a Concurrent Reso¬ lution, authorizing the Attorney General to take action upon this particular matter, but, having as a Concurrent Resolution no force of law to declare a re-entry so as to make efifectual any proceedings he might deem proper to take, the matter was postponed. In 1912 this defendant, of its own voluntary accord, caused to be introduced into the General Assembly an Act, hereafter men¬ tioned, providing for the construction of a dam at the confluence of the Broad and Saluda Rivers, so as to create a very large power, which would assist the navigable features insisted upon in the Act of 1887, and in response to their own request an Act was passed in 1912 (see 17 Stat., 779 ),, which Act, however, expressly provides, as will be seen by reference thereto, that the company should develop the property as contemplated by the Act of 1887 and all amendatory Acts, and should be given such time tr do so as any Court of competent jurisdiction shall determine to be reasonable or practicable, showing the intention of the Legislature in a most solemn form that its great purpose of making a navigable connec¬ tion between waters of the Congaree and Broad Rivers should be fully carried into efifect. Your committee was selected by the Legis¬ lature under the Act of 1917 without request or solicitation on their part and without their knowledge. At the same time a demurrer was filed by the defendant in the action that was brought in which it appears that the defendant claims that it is not subject to any obligation whatsoever under said Act on account of the lapse of time. This is in substance to declare that this company holds absolutely the property without performing any of the conditions of the Act under which it acquired 10 the property, even in the teeth of the decisions of the Supreme Court of our State, delivered in 1909 and 1910. Under the provisions of Section 7 of tlie Act of 1917 this Com¬ mission took up with the authorities in Washington the matter of securing the location of a United States Government Nitrogen Fixation Plant under the terms of the Federal Act known as the Smith Nitrate Bill, and for the purpose of turning over the canal property to the United States under the terms and conditions set forth in said Act. Our attempts to attain this end have been futile. Our communications to the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of the Interior and the War Department in Washington were duly acknowledged, but so far as we are advised no further or favorable action was taken thereon. On May 23d, m Charleston, this Commission conferred with the engineer in charge of improvements of the rivers and harbors in this State, and discussed the steps to be taken to secure a report by the War Department of the value to the public ot the proposed extension of the Columbia Canal. Pursuant to a resolution adopted on account of this conference. Senator Sinkler and Representative Boyd were directed to go t> Washington to secure the assistance of the State Congressional Delegation in having Congress pass legislation necessary to have a full and complete survey and report upon the prospective com¬ pletion of the Columbia Canal made by army engbieers. Repre sentative Boyd went to Washington and upon his return filed his. written report thereof, which is found in the minutes of this Com¬ mission. In order to secure such information as we could under preseiit circumstances as lo the condition of the Columbia Canal, the Attor¬ ney General engaged the services of Mr. Alfred Wallace, of the city of Columbia, to examine the property and to make a report thereon. Mr. Wallace duly reported to this Commission the con¬ dition of the dam across Broad River, the locks, the canal bank and the distribution of power; a copy of said report is attached to our minutes. It appears that the dam across Broad River is a crib dam; that the flooring in five places is entirely gone and in several other places, partially gone and that the dam in some places is out of line; that the boat way around the locks leading from the canal into the river is stopped up with an old flatboat, completely blocking the opening. The metal roof and sides of the structure covering the locks is. 11 rusted out, leaving holes in the roof and sides of the building exposing the gate timber and iron to the weather. Near the C., N. & L. trestle there appears to be a hole in the bank of the canal two feet wide and four feet long. The riprap on this point is washed up in places and in several places the bank has settled. The new bank put up after the 1915 freshet is being washed by rains; this bank is also settled in places. There are two bridges across the canal, one at the Duck Mill and the other at the city water works. The water in the canal from the Duck Mill power plant to Gervais street is very quiet, causing a deposit of mud in the canal in front of the street railway power plant (due to the watei gates at this power plant which were constructed by the Columbia Water Power Company, being closed), and the tailrace of the street railway power plant is being filled up with mud and sand Power is not distributed from this plant (the one constructed by the Columbia Water Power Company, near Gervais street), but from a distributing power station erected by the street railway company into which all current from Parr Shoals power plant, the canal and the steam plant is distributed to the city of Columbia, the electric railway, five cotton mills, fjur phosphate mills, three cotton seed oil mills, the State buildings and Camp Jackson. We have no information to ascertain how much of this power comes from the Columbia Canal and how much from Parr Shoals, but we feel entirely safe in stating that such power is allowed to be developed by the Columbia Canal is used only in cases of emergency and to supplement that furnished by Pair Shoals, and from our own observation apparently the canal as intended for navi¬ gation and for producing power is being gradually, if not absolutelv, abandoned. We are further informed that the contracts entered into by the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company with various industrial and other enterprises in Columbia and vicinity for power to be fur¬ nished from the Columbia Canal, have been changed by the Colum¬ bia Railway, Gas & Electric Company to Parr Shoals, which latter company has been for sometime past supplying such power and only so much of the power of the Columbia Canal used as is necessary to make up temporary or occasional deficiencies from Parr Shoals. Even the contract with the State for power for lighting its own public buildings is being supplied from ihe Parr Shoals power station and not from water flowing in the canal. This is also true of the city of Columbia. It appears beyond doubt that when the 12 sale of this property by the Columbia V^/ater Power Company to the present claimants as owners was made that the canal was the only water source for the generation of electric current, which supplied the industries in and around Columbia and which even turned the wheels of the electric railway cars upon the streets of Columbia, and that such contracts which were very valuable and extended for long terms of years were transferred to the present railway company who have by combination with the Parr Shoah^ Company transferred them at the expense and injury of the canal property to the latter company. We call attention to a letter of Mr. Thornwell McMaster, a resident and citizen of the city of Columbia, and one thoroughly acquainted with the Columbia Canal, of date December 28, 1916, addressed to the Attorney General, which letter was received prior to the meeting of the General Assembly which passed the Acl of March 12, 1917, and which shows the condition at that time of the canal in which the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company had allowed it to become. This letter Is attached to our minutes and marked “A.’’ Seventeen iron towers have been erected on the bank of the cana! from the city limits down to Gervais street. These towers carrv transmission lines for power from Parr Shoals and across the canal to a distribution plant located near by. The Columbia Mills Company, by conveyance and permission of the Columbia Water Power Company, located on the western bank of the canal, opposite the Columbia Mill? factory, a power house and leased a certain amount—1,800 horse power of water power, and while the authority of the Columbia Water Power Company to con¬ vey a section of the canal bank may be doubted, we feel that it i.^ to the interest of the State, subject to the right that was reserved to it for its own development of the canal, that they should not be disturbed in their contract or operation. Of course, the State is entitled to claim from the Mills Company, whenever its rights have been completely established, the income for water power contracted for by that company. We apprehend, therefore, that no occasion will arise where there will be any dispute with that company in regard to this matter. Nor in the diversion of this canal property do we apprehend that there will arise any difficulty with the city of Columbia, who, upon the sale of the canal by the Board of Trus¬ tees to the Columbia Water Power Company, reserved a location for its pumping station, inasmuch as the Act itself gives to that 13 company 500 horse power of water power for its use. The 500 horse power of water power reserved for the State of South Caro¬ lina was acquired by the old Columbia Electric Street Railway Company under a lease which was ratified by the General Assembly. (See 21 Stat., 94.) This lease, however, the Superintendent of the Penitentiary has failed to locate. The best information we can obtain with regard to it is that it was subsequently assigned by the Street Railway Company to the Columbia Water Power Company and by the Columbia Water Power Company assigned to the pres¬ ent Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company. This contract, we suppose, is still in effect and enforceable against the company. Subsequent to the approval of the Act of 1917, parties made inquiry as to terms and conditions upon which they might purchase or take over the canal and the property held therewith. It was apparent, however, that nothing could be done along that line until the canal had come under control of the State. Therefore the Commission considered it advisable to take no active steps to dis¬ pose of the property at this time. That there can be no doubt as to the position of the State with regard to this property and its right thereunder, we refer to the case of the State v. Columbia Water Power Company, 82 S. C., 181, to which the defendant in the case which has been brought was a party. Under a solemn judicial inquiry and investigation by our own State Supreme Court the facts with regard to this canai were settled and determined; hence we have no hesitancy in sub¬ mitting a history of the canal, taken from that decision, to your Honorable Body as settled in the highest Court of this State. “Passing by the general appropriations for internal improve¬ ments, made by the State from time to time, the Appropriation Act of 1882 contains this provision, ‘on the Columbia Canal, locks, dam and works attached thereto, the sum of forty thousand dollars,’ 6 Stat., 201. An Act of 20th December, 1823, relating to the man¬ agement of the several canals of the State, requires the appointment of a Board of Commissioners for the Columbia, Saluda and Bull Sluice Canals, and punishment for any person who ‘shall obstruct the navigation of any of said canals,’ 6 Stat., 214. The rate of toll for boats passing through any part of the Columbia Canal was_ prescribed by Act of 20th December, 1828, 6 Stat., 370, and by Act of 19th December, 1833, 6 Stat., 493. The sum of forty thousand dollars was appropriated in 1836 for the completion of the Colum¬ bia Canal from Young’s Mill to Bull’s Sluice, 6 Stat., 567. The 14 canal was leased to F. W. Green for twenty-one years with authority to collect toll, by Act of 19th December, 1843; but the statute con¬ templates that it shall be kept up by him for purposes of navigation, 11 Stat., 304. By Acts of 1865, 13 Stat., 293, and of 1888, 14 Stat., 83, commissioners were authorized to sell the canal, and one of the conditions of the sale was to be ‘that the same shall be kept open and in proper order for boating purposes (free of all charge for toll or otherwise) as far as the same is now used.’ A sale having been made and the purchaser having failed to comply with its terms by Act of 14th February, 1878, 16 Stat., 360, the General Assembly declared the title had reverted to the State. The Act of 12th March, 1878, 16 Stat., 444, provides for a commission to take possession of the canal, and control and direct its development, giving them authority to lease sites for factories. The design to develop the water power of the canal for manufacturing purposes is still more prominent in subsequent legislation. By the Act of 8th February, 1882, 17 Stat., 855, the property was turned over to the Board of Directors of the Penitentiary with authority to improve and develop the water power by constructing a dam and otherwise, but the purpose to reserve the right of navigation is made evident by the provision that the right of condemnation of property for improvement of the canal is conferred ‘for the sake of the public improvement contemplated in the construction of the said canal and the better navigation of said Broad and Congarea Rivers, and the transportation of supplies to market.’ The State, on 24th December, 1887, transferred the canal to Trustees for the city of Columbia, the Statute, 19 Stat., 1090, by which the transfer was made containing these provisions: Section 2. ‘That the said Board of Trustees are hereby authorized and directed, for the development of the said canal, to take into their possession the said property with all its appurtenances; and for the purpose of navigation, for providing an adequate water power for the use of the penitentiary and for other purposes here¬ inafter named, they are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to improve and develop the same. Section 3. ‘That in order to improve and develop the power of the said canal for navigation, to furnish the city of Columbia with an adequate supply of water and other hydraulic purposes, they are authorized to construct a dam across Broad River, etc.’ ******** ** 15 Section 5. ‘That the said canal shall be open for navigation free of charges by the said Board of Trustees, the State reserving the right to make such improvements in the canal as may be necessary to pro¬ tect navigation through the canal more rapidly than can be accom¬ plished by the Board under this Act: Provided, That said Board of Trustees or lessees of the water power are indemnified against any damage arising therefrom. Section 6. ‘That the said Board of Trustees are required to build only one bridge over the canal, to wit: One on Gervais street. That the said trustees or assigns shall not be required to build any draws or passageways through any other bridges across the canal, unless they voluntarily build additional bridges, and draws or passageways therein shall become necessary for purpose of navigation; and if such draws or passageways or bridges other than those above pro¬ vided for should be built, they shall not be required to work thei same except for their own benefit, nor shall the> be required lo attend to any locks which may be built.’ The duties of the Trustees in developing the canal for navigation are again set out in the amend¬ ment of 1890, 20 Stat., 967. On 11th January, 1892, the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal conveyed by deed to the Columbia Water Power Company the canal and its apputerances, subject to all the conditions, duties, limitations, and liabilities imposed by the statute under which the State turned over the property to the Trustees of the canal. The Columbia Water Power Company went into possession under this conveyance and completed the canal from its soiuce at Bull’s Sluice to the north side of Gervais street. Afterwards, on first of July, 1905, the Columbia Water Power Company by its deed made a like conveyance of the property to the Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light and Power Company, subject to the same duties, conditions, limitations and liabilities. The Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light and Power Company is now in possession of the property and it is by virtue of a contract with that corporation that the city of Columbia is building the bridge or structure to bear across the canal the pipes through which the city intends to pump water from the Saluda River into the city reservoir.” The Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company was a partv defendant in the above entitled action in which the Court declared that it was its duty to keep the said canal open for navigation free of charge, the State reserving the right to make such improvements in the canal as may be necessary to promote navigation, etc., and 16 that it should be compelled to remove the obstruction caused by the erection of a bridge and pipes for the Columbia city waterworks constructed by reason of a contract entered into v/ith the Columbi'V Railway, Gas & Electric Company and the city of Columbia. The above entitled case was twice again before the Supreme Court (see 85 S. C., 113 and 90 S. C., 568) in which latter decision it was ordered that the city of Columbia be allowed eight months trom the filing of that decree for the removal of its bridge over the Columbia canal, and that the Columbia Street Railway, Eight and Power Com¬ pany, within three months of the filing of thai decree, open the Columbia canal by putting the locks in workable condition at the Broad River entrance into the canal. It will be noted that in the above decisions by the Supreme Court it is held that the Columbia Water Power Company took the canal by deed of conveyance from the Board of Trustees, subject to all the conditions, duties, limitations and liabilities imposed by the statute under which the State turned over the property to the trustees of the canal; that thereafter, upon the conveyance by the Columbia Water Power Company of the property to the Columbia Electric Street Railway, Eight and Power Company (now the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company) the same was subject to the same duties, conditions, limitations and liabilities. Under Section 3 of the Act of December 24, 1890, 20 Stat., 967, it is provided: Section 3. “That in order to improve and develop the power of said canal for navigation, to furnish the city of Columbia with an adequate supply of water and other hydraulic purposes, they are authorized to construct a dam across Broad River at, above or below the head of the present canal, as by survey already made or here¬ after to be made may be deemed advisable for the development of said water power,” and the said section further prescribes the fol¬ lowing conditions to be performed by the grantees: '‘Provided, That the canal be so enlarged as to carry a body of water one hundred and fifty feet wide at the top of the water, one hundred and ten feet wide at the bottom, and ten feet deep, and shall develop at least ten thou¬ sand horse power at the south side of Gervais street: Provided, further. That for a distance of about fifty-three chains southerly from the south line of Gervais street the minimum dimensions of the said canal shall be one hundred and fifty feet width at normal level of the surface of the water in the canal when completed, one hun¬ dred and ten feet width at the bottom and ten feet depth; thence 17 southerly for fourteen chains the canal shall be uniformly diminished so as to have the minimum dimensions at the southerly end of said fourteen chains of one hundred and twenty feet width at normal level of the surface of the water in the canal when completed, eighty feet width at the bottom and ten feet depth; and these latter mini¬ mum dimensions shall continue to the terminus of the canal, a dis¬ tance of about sixty-seven chains: Provided, That a suitable fish¬ way for the free passage of fish be constructed in the said dam.” That along the line of the lower reaches of the canal, as and a part of it, was a basin of about two acres for the anchorage of boats, which said basin still exists and is a part of the canal. The width of the canal below Senate street is indicated by old maps to be sixty-six feet, except where this basin is located, and at Holmes’ Lake, over which there is now a railroad trestle. The Act, however, provides for the acquisition of necessary width required by Acts of 1887 and 1890, and of deflections from the line of the old canal, if the same be advisable, so that there can be no contention arising with regard to the power and authority existing for the present Columbia Railway, Gas and Electric Company to perform their obligations and duties for lack of such authority or right. Under the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1917, this Com¬ mission was given authority to enter into such arrangements with the mortgage holders of the Columbia Canal as to protect the interest of the State and the interest of the bondholders, and to enter into such agreements or arrangements, or take such action as they deem advisable with regard thereto which will not be in conflict with any contractual obligations of the State made made by the Acts hereto¬ fore passed with regard to the issue of said bonds and the mortgag¬ ing of said property. It appears that the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal at a meeting held in the city of Columbia, in the State of South Carolina, the 27th day of January, 1888, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1887 and for the purpose of constructing and developing the said canal, did duly authorize and issue a series of bonds amount¬ ing to two hundred thousand dollars, to be numbered from one to three hundred, inclusive, and bear interest from the date thereof at the rate of six per cent, per annum. The bonds numbered from one to fifty, inclusive, to be of the denomination of one thousand dollars and to bear date February 1, A. D. 1888, and to be payable January 1, 1918. The bonds numbered from fifty-one to one hun¬ dred and fifty, inclusive, to be of the denomination of five hundred 18 dollars and to bear date February 1, A. D. 1888, and to be payable January 1, A. D. 1918. The bonds numbered from one hundred and fifty-one to two hundred, inclusive, to be of the denomination of one thousand dollars and to bear date of January 1, A. D. 1889, and to be payable January 1, A. D. 1919, with provision for semiannual payment of interest coupons thereon on the first days of January and July of each and every year until the maturity of said bonds. It therefore appears that $100,000.00 of the above mentioned bonds will fall due on the first day of January, 1918, and that the remaining $100,000.00 will continue to bear interest during the year 1918 and become due and payable on January 1, 1919. Under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1887, 19 Stat. 1090, it was provided that on the back of each and every bond shall be printed the following words: ^‘The City of Columbia, South Carolina, guarantees the prompt payment of each and every coupon attached to this bond.” On December 24, 1887, 19 Stat. 1887, the Legislature passed an Act to authorize the city of Columbia to guarantee and pay the coupons on the bonds to be issued by the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal under an Act entitled ‘‘An Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to said Board the canal with the lands now held therewith and its appurtenances, and to develop the same.” That in pursuance of the provisions of this Act the city of Columbia did duly guarantee the payment of the coupons attached to the said bonds. We are informed that the said coupons have been duly presented to the Treasurer of the city of Columbia when due and that they were paid, the funds for payment thereof being received by the city of Columbia from the Columbia Water Power Company, the Colum¬ bia Electric Street Railway, Light and Power Company, and its suc¬ cessor, Columbia Railway, Gas and Electric Company. We have been unable to ascertain at this date who are the present holders of the bonds and none or them have communicated with or appeared before us. The officers of the city are not informed as to who pre¬ sents the coupons for payment. We, therefore, have not been able to take up the matters referred to in the last above mentioned section of the Act of 1917 with the bondholders for the above reasons and for the further reason that the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company has given no information as to who are the holders of the bonds at present, and in the absence of their furnishing the voluntary 19 information we are unable to force from said company the necessary information. We are advised by the Attorney General that under Section 23 of the Act of 1887, as amended, the purchaser took said property sub¬ ject to all the duties and liabilities imposed thereby and subject to all contracts, liabilities and obligations made and entered into with said Board prior to such sale and transfer. In the conveyances to the Columbia Water Power Company provision is expressly provided for the securing of these obligations by said company and under the conveyance of the Columbia Water Power Company to the pur¬ chaser, the present claimant, they expressly agree to assume and discharge the said bonds and mortgage, and provision is made by the mortgage made by the Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light and Power Company, the former name of the present company, to the Mercantile Trust and Deposit Company for the payment and retirement of said bonds, said mortgage being dated the first day of July, 1905, the date of the conveyance from the Columbia Water Power Company to the said Street Railway Company, and in the mortgage of the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric to the Knicker¬ bocker Trust Company there is likewise provision made for the pay¬ ment and retirement of said bonds under their assumption and agreement to pay the same, both of said mortgages and the convey¬ ance referred to being recorded in the office of Mesne Conveyance for Richland county, to which access may be readily had. It is apparent, therefore, the obligation and duty of said company to pay the principal and interest upon said bonds. We find that the contract made by the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal with the directors of the Penitentiary has in every respect been violated; that they have failed to carry out the two great purposes moving the State to sell, to wit: to widen and enlarge the canal and to join the waters of Congaree and Broad rivers for commerce passing from the seacoast to the city of Columbia, and points beyond and to the upcountry, and for commerce from the upcountry to the city of Columbia and points to the seacoast and to develop the water power as provided by the Acts of the Legislature. The corporation now in possession of this property denies any and all liability to carry out the above conditions of the deed under which it took. It has failed to keep the property in condition for navigation, even that part of the canal constructed prior to the date of its acquisition, and has disregarded and ignored the order of the Supreme Court of South Carolina to remove obstructions at the 20 locks on Broad River, and to remove the bridges obstructing the navigation of the canal. It is true the General Assembly did in 1914, after the city had by permission of the Street Railway Company, obstructed the canal pass an Act authorizing the city of Columbia to maintain the bridge across the canal, mentioned in the decisions of the Court heretofore cited, but that was a mere temporary permission and it was in view of the hope, if not the promises of the owners, that the completion of the canal was to commence in a reasonable time thereafter, for the Act specifically states that such privilege shall extend only to such time as construction work on the completion of said canal shall actually begin, or until this Act shall be repealed or modified, 28 Stats., 881. In effect the Act of 1917 authorizing this Commis¬ sion to take steps to complete the canal as originally designed or upon such plans as are thereafter specified was a repeal of such license or permission, even if we assume that the Legislature could in view of our Constitution authorize this navigable water to be obstructed against the rights of the citizens of the State. It (the Columbia Railway, Gas &' Electric Company) has failed to keep the banks of the canal in repair, which are now in a dangerous con¬ dition so that any considerable freshet would imperil the entire property. It has failed to develop the horse power for industrial purposes either direct or by electricity. It is the opinion of this Commission, from all the facts we are able to ascertain, that it has been long since practicable for those in possession of the canal to perform the obligations of the contract; in fact, the General Assembly at its session in 1912 passed an Act authorizing them to build a dam at the confluence of the Saluda and Broad Rivers to give the necessary water power and to confer upon the said corporation authority, privileges and power, which, had they been accepted, would have relieved the said corporation of die per¬ formance of a large part of its contract and would have carried out all obligations of the said company to the State. And apparently the company was intending to do so because ample provision is made for the raising of the money by the issue of bonds in the mort¬ gage to Knickerbocker Trust Company hereinabove referred to, to the record of which reference may be duly had. We have reason to believe that income from power has been sufficient to justify their undertaking years ago this work. Instead of taking advantage of the provisions of the Act of 1912, the persons in control of the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric 21 Company constructed a dam and hydro electric power plant at Parr Shoals, and in so far as we are informed, the construction of that dam and the development of the power at that point has substan¬ tially, if not completely, destroyed navigation in the Congaree and parts of the Santee Rivers by reason of the necessary ponding of water to operate Parr Shoals. It was at one time supposed that for navigation purposes it would not be necessary or expedient to extend the canal throughout its entire length to Rocky Branch, but as your Commission is now informed, the engineers of the United States in charge of the improvements upon said rivers have reached a conclusion, contained in their reports, that navigation to be made properly serviceable and ndequate for the commerce upon the river, the canal should be extended from Gervais street to its entrance into the Congaree River near Rocky Branch. That such a reference to the reports of these engineers will bear out these statements with regard to this matter, however, we hereto attach a letter written by Mr. White- scarver, the United States local engineer in charge of the work with regard to this matter, and we call attention to the interest in the navigation features of the canal and Congaree River to what is now a])pearing in the public prints with regard to the expediency and benefits that will accrue to the city and to the people of the State at large from the opening of this canal and the joining of the waters of the Congaree and Broad Rivers. In the opinion of this Commission there can be no doubt that the full benefits, contemplated by the State of South Carolina in all of iier Acts now appearing upon the statute books, cannot be obtained without a completion of the canal as designed to the mouth of Rocky Branch, and the maintaining of the canal open free of charge to the citizens of our State. As above stated, an action has been commenced to recover posses¬ sion of this property and to assert the right of the State thereto. We do not consider it a matter of propriety for us to express our¬ selves in an enlarged statement with regard to the rights of the State in this litigation, or to anticipate the Courts in the opinions to be rendered. It is sufficient to say that we are advised in the course of our conduct and by our counsel, that this Act declaring the for¬ feiture and reversion to the State, was a valid exercise by the Legis¬ lature of its power in the premises and was in accordance with prec¬ edence in this State. In fact, with regard to this same canal, in 1878, after it had ben conveyed to William Sprague, who was to 22 enlarge and develop the same and keep it open for navigation, but who failed to do so, the Legislature declared as follows: “The title to the premises conveyed by the said deed of conveyance has reverted to the State,” and under authority thereof subsequently took possession of said canal. (16 Stat., 360). And, not only this, we are advised by our counsel that it is an old and recognized form for a State declaring its right to re-enter by reason of the violation of the conditions of the conveyance and to revest its title, to pass just such statute, and the same have been, time and time again, . upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is evident from the provisions of Section 3 of the Act that two actions were contemplated to be brought against the parties claim¬ ing to own this property, but it will be seen by reference to such Act that the Legislature intended to deal with the company in pos¬ session of and claiming to own said property in the most considerate way, for the statute provides that the claimants may, within ninety days after the approval of the Act, enter into arrangements satis¬ factory to the officers of the State, in which event, of course, no resort to the Courts would be had. The first action contemplated was for the recovery of the possession of the property, upon the failure of such adjustment by the Commission with those in posses¬ sion. The second action contemplated was for the purpose of recovering damages from the pers'ons liable to the State, which had been incurred by reason of the failure of these parties claiming under the Board of Trustees to perform the conditions in said Acts and the obligations assumed by them, and of their permitting the canal to become in the condition it was represented to be, and as we find it to be, and for the destruction of the waters of the canal as a source of power to be sold to the industries in and around Colum¬ bia and for the public buildings in the city. At the time the same passed from the Columbia Water Power Company, that company, we are informed, had under contract the supplying of almost the whole power to the city of Columbia and her mills and other indus¬ tries, as well as to the State. These contracts have been diverted, the waters in the canal have substantially ceased to be utilized, and the Parr Shoals Power Company has become the beneficiary of the actions taken by this company; and, we are informed by the return made to the proper officers of the State, that they have an interlock¬ ing directorate and contracts between them. It may, in the course of an investigation, become most manifest and without doubt that the directors of these two companies have combined to the injurv 23 of the State with regard to the management of this property, con¬ trary to our statute laws, as well as in violation of the contracts of the one, and may have made themselves personally liable. We have not felt, however, until we shall have reached a certain point in the first litigation, that we should direct this new action to be brought, which, when brought, will involve the question of recovery of a large amount of money in favor of the State against the afore¬ said companies and parties. In view of the above statements and opinions which have been reached, this Commission would respectfully recommend: 1. That a vigorous prosecution of the proceedings now commenced and such as are contemplated further by the Act of March 12, 1917. be made, and that sufficient appropriation be made to pay the expenses necessary to carry on such prosecution. 2. That this Commission deems it necessary that power be con¬ ferred upon it to investigate and inquire into all matters and things done by the present claimants and their predecessors, conveyees of the Board of Trustees of said property, as to the management, con¬ trol and disposition thereof, and the disposition of the rents, income and revenue derived from said property; and that it is desirable to inquire into all connections, relationship and association the said conveyees, their officers and agents of said property may have had or now have with any and all corporations and persons, their officers and agents, operating, owning or controlling any other corporation engaged in the production of power or light, and for that purpose they recommended that a Bill be introduced into the General Assem¬ bly, and that the members of this Commission urge its passage. 24 MINUTES OF COMMISSION ON CANAL. The Commission met, pursuant to the call of the Attorney Gen¬ eral, on March 22, 1917, at eleven o’clock a. m. Present: Attorney General Peeples, Senator Huger Sinkler and Hon. J. T. Liles. After an informal discussion of the terms of the Act and the necessary preliminary steps to be taken, the following Resolution was offered by Mr. Sinkler and unanimously adopted: “On motion of Mr. Sinkler, it was moved and carried that the Attorney General be requested, if he deems advisable, to communi¬ cate with all persons necessarily affected by the provisions of the Canal Act, approved March 12, 1917, and to ascertain such infor¬ mation as may be necessary in the premises, and give notice, such as he deems sufficient, to each and all persons concerned, and to take such preliminary steps as in his judgment are in keeping with the provisions of the Act and as may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its provisions, and to report the same to this Commission at its next meeting.” Mr. Liles moved that the Attorney General be requested to get u]) all Acts relative to the canal, and such other data as is available, and have same typewritten or printed, and that each member of the Commission be furnished a copy of same, which motion was unani¬ mously carried. A motion was offered by Mr. Sinkler, and adopted, that the Attor¬ ney General notify all interested parties that a hearing would be granted them at four o’clock p. m. on Monday, the 2d day of April, 1917. A motion was offered by Mr. Liles, and adopted, that the Attor¬ ney General address a communication to each member of the Com¬ mission notifying them of the next meeting and the importance of the presence of each member thereof, also that a permanent Chair¬ man and Secretary would be elected at that meeting. On motion of Mr. Liles, the Commission adjourned to meet at eleven o’clock a. m., on Monday, the 2d day of April, 1917. 25 The following correspondence was had: March 28, 1917. Columbia Railway, Gas and Electric Company, Columbia, South Carolina. Gentlemen: By an Act of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, entitled “An Act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appur¬ tenances, and the interest of the State in and to the Columbia Canal, authorized to be transferred under an Act entitled ‘An Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with the lands now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to develop the same,’ approved December 24th, 1887, and Acts supplemental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State by reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions contained in said Acts, and to provide provisions relating to the operation, management, control, disposal or sale of said canal,” approved on the 12th day of March, 1917,— it was declared that the conditions of the Act of the General Assem¬ bly of the State of South Carolina, approved the 24th day of Decen\- ber, 1887, and the Acts supplemental and amendatory thereof,, had not been complied with, but that the same had been disregarded, and by reason thereof the right, title and interest of the State to the said Columbia Canal, its appurtenances and the lands held there¬ with,. so transferred by virtue of said Acts, had been forfeited an.d reverted to the State. Further, hy said Act, the Attorney General and the Chairmen of the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representa¬ tives, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Rep¬ resentatives, were empowered, authorized and directed, or a majority of them, ninety (90) days after the approval of this Act, to make such re-entry for and in behalf of the State as may be necessary and proper under the circumstances, and to take such steps as may be lawful and proper in the premises to obtain possession and control of the property of the said Columbia Canal, its appurtenances and the lands held therewith, and the improvements placed thereon by those in possession, etc.; and, further, to take such possession, control and direction of the development of the water power originally contem¬ plated by said Act, and to dispose of the same, in such way as they may deem advisable and proper, for the interest of the State. 26 For your information, and to save the trouble of directing your attention in detail to the provisions of said Act, I hereto attach to this letter a copy thereof. At a meeting held on the 22d instant, upon the call of the Attor¬ ney General, it was resolved by the majority of the officers above mentioned, “That the Attorney General be requested, if he deems advisa¬ ble, to communicate with all persons necessarily affected by the provisions of the Canal Act, approved March 12, 1917, and to ascertain such information as may be necessary in the premises, and give notice, such as he deems sufficient, to each and all per¬ sons concerned, and to take such preliminary steps as in his judgment are in keeping with the provisions of the Act and as may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its provisions, and to report the same to this Commission at its next meeting.” It was also further resolved: “That the Attorney General notify all interested parties that a hearing would be granted them at four o’clock p. m. on Mon¬ day, the 2d day of April, 1917,” and, a call for a meeting of the Commission was passed for further action with regard to their duties, and to take such steps under the Act as they may deem proper, to be held on Monday, the 2d day of April, 1917. In accordance with this resolution, and said Act, I beg to give to you the notice contemplated by said resolution, and to call to your attention especially the provisions contained in paragraphs three, five, six and seven of said Act. The officers above mentioned will be very glad for you, or through any representative that you may select, to appear before them at the said date and make such state¬ ments and proposals, with regard to the action contemplated in said sections, or other sections of the statute, as you may see fit to make, and to assure you that they shall be very glad to take up and co-n- sider any matter that you may desire to present to them. If the time which has been fixed for the next meeting of the Com¬ mission be not sufficient, I will thank you to indicate what time, within a reasonable limit, you would desire to appear before the Commission. I am. Yours very truly, THOS. H. PEEPLES, Attorney General. 27 Columbia, S. C., March 30, 1917. Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney General, Columbia, S. C. My Dear Sir: I have your letter of March 28th with reference to the Columbia Canal, and informing me that there will be a meeting of the Commission created by the Act recently passed by the General Assembly, on April 2d. You suggest that if this day does not give us sufficient time, that I express a wish for some other day. It will be necessary for me tc confer with other interests before appearing before your Commis¬ sion, which I am arranging to do on April 12th, which is the earliest day such a meeting can be arranged, and as soon as that meeting has been concluded I will write you requesting that you call a meeting of your Commission. In the meantime, we should be very glad to meet with your Com¬ mission at any convenient date that you may suggest for a discussion of this matter, but I deem it only fair to advise you that I will be in no position to make, or receive, any definite proposition until I have received the authority to act, which I expect to be given me at the meeting above referred to. You understand, of course, that this communication is privileged and is not to be construed or considered as any admission of any obligation on our part. Yours very truly, COLUMBIA RAILWAY, GAS & ELECTRIC CO., By Edwin W. Robertson, President. March 28, 1917. Hon. Arthur K. Sanders, Superintendent of the South Carolina Pen¬ itentiary, Columbia, South Carolina. Dear Sir: On or about the 17th day of May, 1892, the Board of Directors of the South Carolina Penitentiary authorized the Super¬ intendent of the South Carolina Penitentiary to enter into a con¬ tract with the Columbia Electic Street Railway, Light and Power Company, the predecessor of the Columbia Railway, Gas and Elec¬ tric Company, its successor or successors, for the development and utilization of the five hundred horse power of water power reserved by the State of South Carolina for the use of the South Carolina Penitentiary along the line of the Columbia Canal; and the said Superintendent, pursuant to the resolution of the said Board, did, on the 26th day of May, 1892, execute a contract with said com- 28 pany for the use of the five hundred horse power of water power provided for by the Act of December 24th, 1887. I do not have before me a copy of that contract, but on December 24th, 1892, the General Assembly ratified such contract and the parties forthwitli entered upon the carrying out of the terms therein provided for. The successors of the Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light and Power Company, who are now styled the Columbia Railway, Gas and Electric Company, claim, as I am advised and informed, to be the assignees of said contract. The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, at its last session, by an Act approved on the 12th of March, 1917, and enti¬ tled : “An Act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appur¬ tenances, and the interest of the State in and to the Columbia Canal, authorized to be transferred under an Act entitled ‘An Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with the lands now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to develop the same,’ approved December 24th, 1887, and Acts supplemental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State by reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions contained in said Acts, and to provide provisions relating to the operation, management, control, disposal or sale of said canal,” authorized the officers of the State therein mentioned to perform certain duties and to carry out certain purposes and objects therein set forth. I beg to hand you a copy of this Act and direct your attenton to all of its provisions, which may concern the Penitentiary. The Commission will have a meeting on the 2d of April, 1917, at four o’clock p. m., and desire to have before it all information it can with regard to the conditions, physical and financial, of the Columbia Canal, and especially with regard to all contracts outstanding. [, therefore, will thank you to furnish me with the original contract, for inspection, or such copy as may be correct, whether in print or otherwise; and, also, what alterations, since its ratification by the General Assembly, have been made by statute or otherwise, so that we may have before us the terms for which it runs, and the provi sions connected entirely therewith, and how the same has been car¬ ried out and its present condition. I beg, in this respect, to assure you, as Superintendent of the Penitentiary, that we wish to take no step in this matter without full knowledge of everything connected with it, which will throw light 29 upon the question and enable us to carry the same into effect. Also, to co-operate with you and the Board of Directors of the Peniten¬ tiary with regard to this supply of power, whether furnished from water flowing through the canal or from any other source; and, how long such contracts run, and even as to, so far as you at pres ent feel at liberty to do so, how the interests of the State in its Peni¬ tentiary and its canal and the furnishing of power, can be best pro¬ tected and maintained. It may be that we, as State officers, would prefer to take this matter up only as between ourselves, at such con¬ ference as we may desire to fix, and I would be very glad for you to suggest some date at which you will be able to furnish us all the information within your power. We should also be very glad indeed to advise with and inform you of all such matters and con¬ cerns therewith which will materially affect the conduct and man¬ agement of the Penitentiary so far as it relates to this supply of water power and the contracts which have been in force. Will thank you for as prompt reply as you can give. The following resolution was passed by a majority of the officers mentioned in the above Act, on the 22d day of the present month: “That the Attorney General be requested, if he deems advis¬ able, to communicate with all persons necessarily affected by the provisions of the Canal Act, approved March 12, 1917, and to ascertain such information as may be necessary in the prem¬ ises, and give notice, such as he deems sufficient, to each and all persons concerned, and to take such preliminary steps as in his judgment are in keeping with the provisions of the Act and as may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its provisions, and to report the same to this Commission at its next meeting.” Should you find that you are unable to communicate with us at the time mentioned, please indicate by letter, or take the matter up personally with the Commission at such time as will be convenient to all sides. I am. Yours very respectfully, THOS. H. PEEPLES, Attorney General. March 28, 1917. Farmers Loan and Trust Company, New York, N. Y. Gentlemen: An Act was passed by the General Assembly of the 30 State of South Carolina, at its last session, and approved on the 12th day of March, 1917, by the Governor, entitled: “An Act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appur¬ tenances, and the interest of the State in and to the Columbia Canal, authorized to be transferred under an Act entitled ‘An Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with the lands now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to develop the same,’ approved December 24th, 1887, and Acts supplemental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State by reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions contained in said Acts, and to provide provisions relating to the operation, management, control, disposal or sale of said Canal.” Under a conveyance by the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal to the Columbia Water Power Company, it appears that $200,000.00 of mortgage coupon bonds were authorized and directed to be issued by the said Board of Trustees for the completion of the canal; and that by an Act of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, the City Council of Columbia were authorized to guarantee the payment of the coupons thereon. By an Act of 1890, which was further set out in the conveyance of said canal, there appears to have been an agreement made by the purchasers to guarantee to the city of Columbia the payment of the interest on the bonds so issued, and that certain bonds, to secure the payment of said interest, were deposited with you under certain coti- . ditions set forth in said agreement. I have no doubt that you have a duplicate of this agreement, or of the trust, upon which you hold the bonds so deposited. You will notice by the terms of the Act, a copy of which I attach hereto, that the Attorney General and the Chairmen of the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives have been given certain power, authority and direction, with regard to the property known as the Columbia Canal. At a meeting held on the 22d instant, upon the call of the Attorney General, it was resolved by the officers above mentioned, “that the Attorney General be requested, if he deems advisable, to communicate with all persons necessarily affected by the provisions of the Canal Act, approved March 12th, 1917, and to ascertain such information as may be necessary in the premises, and give notice, such as he deems suffi- 31 cient, to each and all persons concerned, and to take such preliminary steps as in his judgment are in keeping with the provisions of the Act and as may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its pro¬ visions, and to report the same to this Commission at its next meet- • yy mg. It is their desire to get in possession of all the facts of the case, and the present financial condition of the canal; therefore, I will thank you if you will advise me what bonds you received, and what bonds you now hold; and, if any of these bonds have ever been sur¬ rendered, to whom and in what amounts. I may refer you, in passing, to Section 6 of the Act which is enclosed, a portion of which is as follows: “And, further, that they (the officers mentioned in said Act) may enter into such arrangements with the mortgage bondhold¬ ers of the Columbia Canal as to protect the interest of the State and the interest of said bondholders; and may enter into such agreements or arrangements, or take such action as they may deem advisable with regard thereto, which shall not be in con¬ flict with any contractual obligations of the State made by the Acts heretofore passed with regard to the issuing of said bonds and the mortgaging of said property.” I am. Yours very truly, THOS. H. PEEPLES, Attorney General. April 4, 1917. Thomas H. Peeples, Esq., Attorney General, State of South Caro¬ lina, Columbia, S. C. Dear Sir: We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, with reference to securities held by this company as Trustee for Columbia Railway, Gas and Electric Company, formerly the Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light and Power Company, Assignee of the Columbia Water Power Company. We enclose a list of the securities held at the present time duly attested and also a statement of the securities originally received with changes that have taken place during the period of our custody. Trusting this will give you the information you desire, we are. Very truly yours, THE FARMERS LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY, By A. V. Heely, Vice President. 32 April 4th, 1917. Statement of securities held by The Farmers Loan and Trust Company as Trustee of the Columbia Water Power Co., Columbia, S. C.: Jan. 19, 1892. Received from them, 82 bonds West Shore R. R. Co. 1st Mtge. 4%, due Jan. 1, 2361 .$82,000 Jan. 8, 1906. Letter dated Jan. 6, 1906, from Columbia Water Power Co., stating that the above $82,000 bonds had passed by sale with plant and other assets of the company to the Columbia Electric Street Rail¬ way, Light 8z Power Co. on July 1, 1905. Mar. 18, 1906. Received assignment of Columbia Water Power Co. to Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light & Power Co., dated July 1, 1905, of above bonds. Jan. 28, 1909. Delivered to the Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light & Power Co. the above bonds in exchange for 35 bonds, Colum¬ bia Electric Street Railway, Light & Power Co., $35,000 30 Year Gold 5%, due July 1, 1935. July 25, 1911. Received in exchange for above bonds, 40 bonds Columbia Railway, Gas & Elec¬ tric Co., $40,000, 1st Mortgage 5%, due July 1, 1936. Name changed from Columbia Electric Street Railway, Light & Power Co. on July 22, 1911, to Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Co. New York, April 4th, 1917. Statement of securities held by The Farmers Loan and Trust Com¬ pany as Trustee for Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Co. under deed of trust dated January 7, 1892: Description, 40 bonds Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Co., par value $40,000; rate 5% ; interest payable, 1st January and July; 1st Mtge. S. F. due July 1, 1936. Total, $40,000. THE FARMERS LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY, By A. V. Heely, Vice President. 33 March 28th, 1917. Honorable Lewie A. Griffith, Mayor of the City of Columbia; Hon¬ orable R. C. Keenan, Honorable C. M. Asbill, Honorable E. M. DuPre, Honorable F. S. Earle, Members of the City Council of Columbia, Columbia, South Carolina. Gentlemen: I beg herewith to hand you a copy of the Act passed at the last session of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, approved by the Governor on the 12th day of March, 1917, and to ask your examination and consideration thereof. A meeting of the officers named in said Act was called and held, in the city of Columbia on March 22d, 1917, and a resolution was passed requesting the Attorney General to communicate with all per¬ sons necessarily affected by the provisions of the Canal Act, approved March 12th, 1917, and to ascertain such information as may be necessary in the premises, and give notice, such as he deems sufficient, to each and all persons concerned, and to take such prelimi¬ nary steps as in his judgment are in keeping with the provisions of the Act and as may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its provisions, and to report the same to the Commission at its next meeting. The next meeting of the Commission was fixed to be held at Columbia, at the office of the Attorney General, on the 2d day of April, 1917, at four o’clock p. m. If the time which has been fixed for the next meeting of the Com¬ mission be not sufficient, I will thank you to indicate what time, within a reasonable limit, you would desire to meet with it. The Commission wishes to lose no time in carrying into effect the provisions of this Act and performing all the duties thereunder. I beg to call your attention to the Act of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, approved the 24th day of December, 1887, 19 Stat., S. C., page 1090, and to the Act approved the same day, 19 Stat., S. C., page 1097. The first Act authorized the transfer of the Columbia Canal to a Board of Trustees, created by said Act, and required them to per¬ form such duties as are in said Act prescribed; and that, after said Board had performed its duties, they should, under Section 18, transfer the Columbia Canal, and its appurtenances to the city of Columbia thus making the city of Columbia the beneficiary under said Act, subject, however, to the burdens imposed therein. 34 - The second Act authorized the city of Columbia to guarantee and pay the coupons on bonds to be issued by the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal under the Act first mentioned. Subsequently, the first Act, of 1887, was amended with regard to Section 3, which prescribed the widening and deepening of the old canal, etc. And Section 23 also, of said Act, was amended so as to authorize the Board of Trustees, after they had developed the canal and secured the payment of the debts contracted by them in its development, to turn over the canal, with all its appurtenances, to the city of Columbia. But, that the said Board of Trustees should have full power and authority, before the said canal had been fully developed and completed and turned over to the city of Columbia, to sell, alienate and transfer the same and all its appurtenances, the lands held therewith, and all the rights and franchises conferred by the Act on said Board of Trustees, to any person or corporation, sub¬ ject, however, to all the duties and liabilities imposed thereby, and subject to all contracts, liabilities and obligations made and entered into by said Board prior to such sale and transfer, upon the appro¬ val and consent of nine members of the City Council of the city of Columbia, etc. This Act was approved on December 24th, 1890. (20 Stat., S. C., page 967.) I am advised that the proposition for the purchase of the canal was made by George Wallace to the Board of Trustees of the Colum¬ bia Canal and to the Mayor and Aldermen of the city of Columbia, of date about July 14th, 1891, and that said proposition was accepted by the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal and was approved by the City Council on or about July 15th, 1891; and, that it was subsequently assigned by George Wallace to Aretas Blood, and was duly assigned by said Aretas Blood to the Columbia Water Power Company, a corporation duly incorporated by and under the laws of the State of South Carolina. Under the proposition made to the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal and to the City Council of Columbia, a conveyance was made which reserved to the city of Columbia a certain strip of land on the east and west sides of said canal, from the north side of Laurel street to the south side of Blanding street, and an additional one hundred horse power of water power. The said George Wallace, and his assigns, for the purpose of guaranteeing the payment of the interest on said bonds, agreed that they would deposit certain bonds in the city of New York and in Columbia, in accordance with the conditions therein set forth, and 35 such bonds, belonging to the Columbia Water Power Company, were deposited, under contract, with a trust company of New York and the Loan and Exchange Bank of this State, subject to the conditions and terms fully set forth, the original of which we suppose the city of Columbia now has in its possession. This notice is given, therefore, to you as being a party concerned, within the terms of this Act, as well as the bondholders alluded to in Section 6 of the Act. Hence, the Commission will be very glad for you to take this matter under consideration, for the protection of the rights of the city thereunder, and of the State’s interest, as they beg to assure you that it is their intention to protect the city’s interest and to preserve these contracts to the full extent authorized ])y said Act. I would thank you, therefore, to communicate wtih the Commission upon the subject on the date mentioned, or at such date, within a reasonable time, as you may designate. How far the State of South Carolina may be subrogated to this agreement of guaranty, or how far the city of Columbia may be obligated, ought to be considered. The Commission will be very glad to co-operate in any way it can to clarify the situation, and this can only be done by it having the adequate knowledge—which you can furnish by the production of the papers and of such contracts as the city may have with the present company as to the supplying of water under the Acts and contracts by the corporation claiming under Columbia Water Power Company; and, how many bonds on the canal are outstanding, and how many have been taken down from the West Shore bonds which were deposited to guarantee the payment of this interest. I am. Yours very truly, THOS. H. PEEPLES, Attorney General. March 28th, 1917. Loan and Exchange Bank of Columbia, S. C., or Its Successor or Successors, Columbia, South Carolina. Gentlemen: An Act was passed by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, at its last session, and approved on the 12th day of March, 1917, by the Governor, entitled: “An Act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appur¬ tenances, and the interest'of the State in and to the Columbia Canal, authorized to be transferred under an Act entitled ‘An 36 Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with the lands now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to develop the same,’ approved December 24th, 1887, and Acts supplemental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State by reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions con¬ tained in said Acts, and to provide provisions relating to the operation, management, control, disposal or sale of said Canal.” Under a conveyance of the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal to the Columbia Water Power Company, it appears that $200,- 000.00 of mortgage coupon bonds were authorized and directed to be issued by the said Board of Trustees for the completion of the canal; and that by an Act of the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, the City Council of Columbia were authorized to guarantee the payment of the coupons thereon. By an Act of 1890, which was further set out in the conveyance of said canal, there appears to have been an agreement made by the ])urchasers to guarantee to the city of Columbia the payment of the interest on the bonds so issued, and that certain bonds, to secure the payment of said interest, were deposited with you under certain conditions set forth in said agreement. I have no doubt that you have a duplicate of this agreement, or of the trust, upon which you hold the bonds so deposited. You will notice by the terms of the Act, a copy of which I attach hereto, that the Attorney General and the Chairmen of the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate and the Chair¬ man of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Represen¬ tatives have been given certain power, authority and direction, with regard to the property known as the Columbia Canal. At a meeting held on the 22d instant, upon the call of the Attorney General, it was resolved by the officers above mentioned, “that the Attorney General be requested, if he deems advisable, to communicate with all persons necessarily affected by the provisions of the Canal Act, approved March 12th, 1917, and to ascertain such information as may be necessary in the premises, and give notice, such as he deems suffi¬ cient, to each and all persons concerned, and to take such preliminary steps as in his judgment are in keeping with the provisions of the Act and as may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its pro¬ visions, and to report the same to this Commission at its next meet¬ ing. 37 It is their desire to get in possession of all the facts of the case, and the present financial condition of the canal; therefore, I will thank you if you will advise me what bonds you received, and what bonds you now hold; and, if any of these bonds have ever been sur¬ rendered, to whom and in what amounts. I may refer you, in passing, to Section 6 of the Act which is enclosed, a portion of which is as follows: “And, further, that they (the officers mentioned in said Act) may enter into such arrangements with the mortgage bondhold¬ ers of the Columbia Canal as to protect the interest of the State and the interest of said bondholders; and may enter into such agreements or arrangements, or take such action as they may deem advisable with regard thereto, which shall not be in con¬ flict with any contractual obligations of the State made by the Acts heretofore passed with regard to the issuing of said bonds and the mortgaging of said property.” I am. Yours very truly, THOS. H. PEEPLES, Attorney General. April 3, 1917. Hon. Newton D. Baker, Secretary of War of the United States. Washington, D. C. Dear Sir: I have the honor to advise you that the General Assem¬ bly of the State of South Carolina, at its last session, passed an Act, which was approved by the Governor on March 12, 1917, and went into efifect upon said date, entitled “An Act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appurtenances, and the interest of the State in and to the Columbia Canal, authorized to be transferred under an Act entitled ‘An Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with the lands now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to develop the same,’ approved December 24, 1887, and Acts supple¬ mental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State by reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions contained in said Act, and to provide provisions relating to the operation, manage¬ ment, control, disposal or sale of said canal.” Section 1 of this Act is as follows: “Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, That the condi¬ tions of the Act of the General Assembly hereinabove mentioned. 38 and the Acts supplemental or amendatory thereof, have not been complied with, but that the same have been disregarded, and by rea¬ son thereof the right, title and interest of the State to the said Columbia Canal, its appurtenances and the lands held therewith, so transferred by virtue of said Acts, have been forfeited and reverted to the State.” Section 2 gives certain powers to and enjoins certain duties upon the Attorney General and the Chairmen of the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representaives with regard to the disposal of the Columbia Canal. A meeting of the officers named in said Act was called and held in the city of Columbia on March 22, 1917, and a resolution was passed “requesting the Attorney General to communicate with all ])ersons necessarily affected by the provisions of the Canal Act, approved March 12, 1917, and to ascertain such information as may be necessary in the premises and give notice, such as he deems suffi¬ cient, to each and all persons concerned, and to take such prelimi¬ nary steps as in his judgment are in keeping with the provisions of the Act, and as may be in furtherance of the carrying into effect its provisions, and to report the same to the Commission at its next meeting.” I am advised that there have been made to your Department, severally or jointly, certain propositions with reference to making some arrangements to obtain the location of a nitrogen fixation plant at Columbia, under the terms of the Federal Act, known as the “Smith Nitrate Bill.” By Section 7 of said Act, as the officers mentioned therein con¬ strue it, there was no limitation placed upon the time when they are authorized and have authority to make such proposition or conclude any agreement that may meet with satisfaction. I attach hereto copy of said Act and direct your attention to Section 7 thereof. The property having reverted to the State under this Act, and as this property for nearly five miles not only includes the canal itself, but also the lands on the Broad River, which have been overflowed by the construction of the dam, or would be overflowed by a higher dam, as also the lands on the east and west sides of the canal itself; and, as the State of South Carolina does not desire to make any money out of the property, except to obtain the free navigation of the Congaree and Broad Rivers and the development of the power 39 for the use of the city of Columbia and surrounding industries, which would prevent any monopoly by the purchasing of the whole of the water power by several companies in the State, thus insuring to the citizens of the State for whom it would be available competi¬ tive rates for power, we would be inclined to think that a very small outlay for lands necessary for the development by the Federal Gov¬ ernment, would be deemed advisable. Yours very truly, THOS, H. PEEPLES, Attorney General. Similar letters were sent to Secretary of Interior and Secretary of Agriculture. Washington, April 14, 1917. Hon. Thos. H. Peeples, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Columbia, S. C. Sir: I have the honor to state that your letters of the 3d instant, to members of the Board on location of federal nitrate plants, have been referred to this office, which is giving study to the matter, and that they have been filed for reference should the need arise. By direction of the Chief of Engineers: Very respectfully, C. KELLER, Lt. Col., Corps of Engineers. The Secretary of Agriculture. Washington, April 7, 1917. Hon. Thos. H. Peeples, Attorney General, Columbia, S. C. Dear Sir: I have your letter of April 3 in reference to an Act passed by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina in reference to the Columbia Canal and its appurtenances. This mat¬ ter, so far as I can gather, relates mainly to the possible use of the canal in connection with a nitrate site. This whole question is receiving the careful consideration of the Nitrate Board. I shall be glad to bring it to its attention. Very truly yours, D. S. HOUSTON, Secretary. 40 The Secretary of the Interior. Washington, April 7, 1917. Hon. Thos. H. Peeples, Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Columbia, S. C. My Dear Mr. Attorney General: Secretary Lane has received your letter of April 3d, with respect to the location of the nitrate plant, and in reply wishes me to say that he is bringing it to the attention of Secretary Baker, of the War Department, for his consideration. Cordially yours, GLENN M. SHAEFFER, Acting Private Secretary. Columbia, S. C., April 2, 1917. Pursuant to call of Attorney General Peeples, the Commission met at twelve o’clock, noon, on April 2, 1917. Members of the Commission present were: Attorney General Peeples, Senator Huger Sinkler, Hon. J. W. Boyd, and Hon. J. T. Liles. Minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved. A permanent organization was affected by the election of Attorne> General Peeples as Chairman, and Mr. J. T. Liles as Secretary. The Attorney General reported that in accordance with motion adopted at previous meeting, he had addressed communications to the following named parties, who are interested in the Columbia Canal property: Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, Columbia, S. C., dated March 28, 1917; Hon. A. K. Sanders, Superintendent of the South Carolina Penitentiary, Columbia, S. C., dated March 28, 1917; Hon. Lewie A. Griffith, Mayor, and members of City Council, Columbia, S. C., dated March 28, 1917; Loan and Exchange Bank of Columbia, S. C., or its successor or successors, Columbia, S. C., dated March 28, 1917; Farmers Loan and Trust Company, New York, N. Y., dated March 28, 1917. Copies of these letters, together with such replies as were received, were made a part of the Attorney Gen¬ eral’s report, and are attached to these minutes. The question of the employment of counsel to assist the Attorney General in any litigation that might arise, was discussed, and it was decided to consult with Mr. B. L. Abney and Mr. J. Fraser Lyon relative to securing their services. Upon invitation of the Commission, these gentlemen appeared before the Commission and they agreed to assist the Attorney Gen- 41 eral in representing the State’s interests in the event the Commission decided that additional counsel was needed. During said consul¬ tation the Act creating Canal Commission, approved March 12, 1917, was read and the attention of these gentlemen was called to the amount fixed in the Appropriation Bill of 1917, as specified by Item 7 of Section 9, for the purpose of litigation in connection with the Columbia Canal. These gentlemen stated that they would be will¬ ing to act as assistant counsel to the Attorney General, representing the Committee, and if the litigation devolved more work than could be at present foreseen, they would leave to the discretion of the Commission the question whether they would recommend to the Legislature more compensation than was fixed by the Appropriation Bill. At the conclusion of this conference, upon motion of Mr. Sinkler, it was decided to approve the employment of Mr. B. L. Abney and J. F. Lyon to assist the Attorney General in representing the Com¬ mission. The question of compensation in reference to the amounts and time of payment to be considered at the next session of the Commission. Hon. A. K. Sanders, Superintendent of the Penitentiary, appeared before the Commission in reply to letter addressed to him by the Attorney General and stated that the Columbia Railway, Gas and Electric Company was paying to the Penitentiary $187.73 per month, but that he could not find the contract providing for such, payment. The Commission requested Mr. Sanders to continue his search for the contract, and to secure such other information as in his judg¬ ment, would prove of assistance to the Commission. At six o’clock p. m., upon motion of Mr. Boyd, the Commission adjourned to meet Tuesday, April 17th, at ten o’clock a. m., unless otherwise called by the Chairman. Columbia, S. C., April 17, 1917. Pursuant to adjournment of the Commssion on April 2, 1917, the Commission met in the Attorney General’s office at ten o’clock a. m. Present: Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Hon. Huger Sinkler and Hon. Jesse W. Boyd. In the absence of the Secretary, the Chairman appointed Mr. Boyd to act as temporary Secretary. 42 Minutes of previous meeting were read. Mr. Sinkler moved to- amend the minutes (in justice to Mr. Abney) by inserting at the foot of the minutes, the following: “When reference was made to* the Section of the Act and the Appropriation Bill with reference to compensation of attorneys, Mr. Abney stated that the matter of his compensation was secondary, his interest in the suit being primary.’^ During consideration of this motion, Hon. Neils Christensen and Hon. J. T. Liles, Secretary, came in. Motion adopted. Mr. Boyd moved that the minutes be further amended by strik¬ ing out the words “pursuant to call of Attorney General Peeples,” in the first paragraph, and inserting in lieu thereof “pursuant to adjournment at previous meeting.” Motion adopted. There being no further amendments, the minutes were approved as amended. Letters were submitted by the Chairman that had been received from the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of the Interior of the United States and were ordered made a part of the record. Copies of letters written by the Attorney General to parties inter¬ ested in the canal property and all replies that had been received, were made part of the record. At eleven o’clock a. m., upon motion of Mr. Boyd, the Commission receded from business until 11 :15. Mr. Liles, representing the Columbia Railway, Gas and Electric Company, at the invitation of the Commission, appeared and made a statement which is filed with the records of this Commission. Upon motion of Mr. Sinkler, further consideration of the matter- of compensation for additional counsel was postponed until the next meeting of the Commission. Upon motion of Mr. Boyd, Attorney General Peeples and Senator- Sinkler were named as a committee to look into the advisability of securing the services of a competent engineer in order that the prob¬ able cost of the completion of the canal might be determined and report at the next meeting. Upon motion of Mr. Christensen, it was ordered that the Com¬ mission address a letter to Mr. B. L. Abney and Mr. J. Fraser Lyon requesting that they submit in writing to the Commission the terms upon which they will serve the Commission as assistant counsel to» the Attorney General in connection with the Columbia Canal liti-- gation. 43 At six o’clock p. m. the Commission adjourned to meet at ten o’clock a. m. on Thursday, April 26, unless otherwise called by the Chairman. Approved May 23, 1917. N. CHRISTENSEN, Acting Secretary. STATEMENT BY MR. J. B. S. LYLES. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Commission: I represent in this matter, the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, and am very sorry that on account of unexpected circumstances, we are not¬ in a position to talk to the Commission this morning. Mr. Robert¬ son, the President of this company, addressed a letter to the Attorney General, stating that in so far as this company was concerned, he could not act until he had been authorized to do so by a meeting of this company, held on the 12th inst. We had expected at that time that Mr. Robertson would get back from New York, and Mr. Elliott and I expected to see him on yesterday and appear before this Com¬ mission this morning in a definite manner, but Mr. Robertson became engaged with General Wood in connection with this canton¬ ment, in which he is very much interested as a citizen of Columbia, and in which he has done a great deal of work, and will not be back until tomorrow, so we are without authority to act. We didn’t know until Saturday night that he had changed his plans about returning and immediately Mr. Elliott got in touch with the Attorney General. Now, we don’t want the Commission to think we are in any way trying to delay this matter, because, as you gentlemen know, it is a very complicated situation and our efiforts have been to get down to some definite basis upon which to take the matter up with this Commission. As I stated before, the meeting of the Directors has been held in New York, but until we have a conference with Mr. Robertson we are unable to act. Mr. J. T. Liles: Do you think you will be in a position to make a proposition tomorrow ? Mr. J. B. S. Lyles: I could not say positively when Mr. Robertson will get back. This morning at ten o’clock he had not wired whether or not he would be here. He is interested in getting the camp in Columbia and he and General Wood are in New York. Mr. Sinkler: Would your client be in position to submit a written statement of your proposition to this Commission? 44 Mr Lyles: We will be just as soon as we have a conference with our clients. That is what we intended to do. Mr. J. T. Liles: At what time do you think your company would be in position to submit such a statement? Mr. Lyles: Within a day or so after Mr. Robertson gets back— certainly by next week. Mr. Sinkler: And after such proposition had been made, oral statements would be unnecessary ? Mr. Lyles: I should think so. I take it that this Commission has not made any proposition to this company, but has invited a propo¬ sition from the company, and just as soon as we can find out what the company wishes, we will submit the written proposition. Mr. Peeples: If Mr. Robertson returns today or tomorrow and the Commission is in session, could you make a proposition to the Commission tomorrow? Mr. Lyles: If he gets in today, which I think is very doubtful, we could make the proposition tomorrow, but we would like to have a couple of hours to confer and frame this proposition. While it might be done, I don’t see how we could by tomorrow. I wanted the Commission to understand that this situation was one we could not help and we are not trying to delay matters. Mr. W. C. Miller and Mr. Howard Baetjer appeared before the Commission and made statements, as follows: Mr. Miller: I am here representing Mr. Howard Baetjer, who is President of the Mount Vernon-Woodbury Mills. The Mount Ver¬ non Mills is the owner of a site on the canal, and I think some eigh¬ teen hundred horse power. The site and horse power were acquired from the Columbia Mills by deeds in 1894, and I think one or two subsequent. The Columbia Mills was erected near the canal, as I understand it, not on the canal property, but the powerhouse is. Our view of the situation is that the site was acquired and water power purchased by the Columbia Mills from the Columbia Water Power Company under the power of sale contained in the Act of 1887, and our view is that if there has been a forfeiture of any of the Columbia Mills property, that forfeiture has not extended to the sale like this of a site and water power which was made under the terms conferred by the original deed and in this case it was a case of a mill induced by the invitation held up by the Act of 1887 to erect mills, and this mill with thirty thousand spindles purchased this site and water power in reliance upon that Act. So that, we have come before you gentlemen this morning with no proposition except to 45 say that your Commission will recognize the title to the site and to the water power and will recommend that it be confirmed in us as third parties, purchasers in good faith, and for valuable considera¬ tion under the terms of the Act. The water power, I think, is paying an annual rental of $7.00 per horse power,—eighteen hundred horse power. Of course, if that power should revert to the State, the revenue from the horse power would be in the State, and we are here only to ask that the Commis¬ sion will see the justice of recognizing the title which we have acquired and recommending that it be confirmed. We have put it in the shape of a short letter and will ask the Commission to file it. Following is the letter received : “Columbia, S. C., June 11, 1917. Messrs. Thomas H. Peeples, N. Christensen, Jesse W. Boyd, J. T. Lyles and Huger Sinkler, Commissioners Appointed Under the Act to Declare That the Columbia Canal, Etc., Shall Revert to the State. Gentlemen: The Mount Vernon-Woodbury Mills, Inc., is the owner of a site upon the Columbia Canal and of water power derived therefrom. This site and this water power were acquired from the Columbia Mills, to whom they were sold and conveyed by the Colum¬ bia Water Power Company by deeds dated in 1884. The sales were made under the ample power of sale contained in the Act of Decem¬ ber 24, 1887; and the Columbia Mills was located near the canal with a capacity of thirty thousand spindles in reliance upon the power of sales therein contained. The Mount Vernon-Woodbury Mills, Inc., therefore, submits that if there has been any forfeiture of the Columbia Canal properties, such forfeiture does not extend to the land and the water power so hona fide sold and purchased in reliance upon said Act. It, therefore, asks that the Commission will recog¬ nize and confirm its title to the said site and water power, subject to the approval of the Legislature of South Carolina. Respectfully, HOWARD BAETJER, President.” Mr. Sinkler: Where is the power now obtained from, Mr. Baet- 'er ? Mr. Baetjer: That horse power is water power and we have to develop it ourselves. Our powerhouse is on the banks of the canal, 46 and we generate that power and pay rent for so many horse power of water in the canal. We generate the power and carry it to the mill. [ think the deed calls for the land and so many cubic feet of water in the canal. Mr. Liles: To whom do you pay this rent? Mr. Baetjer: To the successors of the Columbia Water Power Company. It was bought with so many horse power of water. The land was paid for outright and the horse power rented. The deeds are dated in 1894,— for the horse power has been from time to time, but the deed for the land is 1894. Mr. Sinkler: Have you a contract for supplying the horse power from any other source? Mr. Baetjer: That was not enough water, so we bought the rest from the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company; that supply, I think, is from Parr Shoals; neither source is sufficient. C. S. MONTEITH, CITY ATTORNEY. Gentlemen, we can find no special contract other than the Act of the Legislature; the City Clerk informs me that we have no other contract. We are getting the supply of water called for—five hun¬ dred horse power. Sometimes we don’t use it all and sometimes we do. By Mr. Liles: Have they complied with the Act of the Legisla¬ ture? Yes, sir, in so far as we are concerned. Mr. Boyd: Was that just gratis to the city because the city of Columbia happened to be the capital, or was there some considera¬ tion? There was some consideration, I think. I am inclined to think the city of Columbia spent a great deal of money in helping to open the canal to where it is. I could not say positively, however, for it is so far back. By Mr. Boyd: But can’t you find something tangible? I will try, Mr. Boyd. By Mr. Boyd: Of course, if the city of Columbia is simply receiv¬ ing 500 horse power from the Street Railway Company because the Act of the Legislature said so, or because Columbia was the capital of the State, that would be a very different proposition from a proposition founded on some consideration on the part of the city, and can’t you find something tangible? I will try to see if I can’t get you that information. I was told the city had spent some money, but it is hard to find the records. 47 By Mr. Boyd: How many bonds are outstanding is the next question ? All are outstanding. By Mr. Christensen: What records has the City Treasurer in ref¬ erence to these bonds ? No records. By Mr. Christensen: Your statement that these bonds are out¬ standing is based on what? The city guaranteed the interest on these bonds and that amounts to $12,000.00 per year and the Street Railway Company has been paying to our City Treasurer v$6,000.00 every six months, which shows that the bonds are outstanding. By Mr. Boyd: Do you know what was the motive, Mr. Monteith, for assigning that duty to the City Treasurer? I couldn’t tell you except he was to act as Clerk to this Commission created by the Legislature and the city guaranteed the bonds, the interest on the bonds. By Mr. Liles: What obligation was there on the part of the city' to guarantee these bonds ? The Legislature said they must do so. By Mr. Sinkler : Couldn’t you ascertain that—are there any mem^ bers of that Commission living now? I have a copy of the mortgage given to secure these bonds; Captain W. B. Lowrance is still alive; Colonel McMaster is dead. General Wilie Jones was one of the Trustees, and he might give me some information. Mr. Wright and Mr. Marshall are dead. By Mr. Boyd: Have you a copy you can give us? I will leave this copy with you. I have no other copy, but it is recorded in Richland county. As I said before, all the bonds are outstanding. $100,000 is due next January and the other $100,000 due the first of January, 1919. The interest on these bonds has been regularly paid by the Street Railway Company; they have paid the amount to the City Treasurer and he has paid the interest on the bonds. He paid $6,000 on last January and I presume will pay $6,000 in July. By Mr. Peeples: Do you know anything in connection with the property adjoining the canal that once belonged to the city and if it now belongs to them? I do not. I will ask the Superintendent of the Water Works to get that information for you. He says we own all the property; a strip of land was swapped with the power company in some way. When the Street Railway Company took on this matter they guaranteed payment of interest and deposited West Shoal Railway bonds. As to how many of these bonds have been taken down, I will state a former City Council let all of these bonds be taken down upon others being put up in their place. They 48 were to protect the interest and the interest has been taken care of. I want to file with this Commission an extract of the minutes of the meeting as to the right of the city to take down the West Shoal bonds and substitute others. By Mr. Peeples: Where are these bonds? I understand in the Loan & Exchange Bank and some Trust Company in New York. By Mr. Peeples : What is the amount? $82,000.00 and $18,000.00 which makes $100,000.00. By Mr. Peeples: Can you tell us how many are filed with each? $82,000.00 with the Farmers Trust Company, and $18,000.00 with the Loan & Exchange Bank, I think. By Mr. Peeples: What became of the difiference? They paid up the interest and reduced their liability so far as the interest was concerned, by paying $12,000.00 in cash each year. The contract provided that they put up these bonds to secure the interest, not the bonds. The property was mortgaged for the payment of these bonds and they have taken care of the interest right along every year. By Mr. Peeples: Why were the $100,000.00 bonds put up and there are now only $60,000.00 worth of bonds—what became of the difiference? That $100,000.00 was put up in 1905, then they have paid four years’ interest, or $48,000.00, reducing their liability by that much. By Mr. Boyd: The payment of interest is in lieu of the bonds? When they pay up that interest, they are entitled to take all those bonds down. By Mr. Boyd: This paper refers to the substitution and to a con¬ tract—have you a copy of that contract? That is a Legislative Act. By Mr. Boyd: If the city of Columbia has any vested rights with reference to this matter, that should be protected; if they have none, then we might deal with the proposition without any reference to the city’s interest; it appears that there is some consideration and can you find something for us? Well, so far as we know at this time the 500 horse power was vested in the city by Act of the Leg¬ islature and I don’t know what the consideration was. By Mr. Liles: What right does the city claim? They don’t claim anything except to be protected in what they have had all the time. We have made no additional claim whatever. Mr. Sinkler: Does the city want to claim that? Yes, sir, we cer¬ tainly do. We must supply the people in this city with water. 49 By Mr. Christensen: Does the city operate its own plant? Yes, sir. By Mr. Christensen: And this water that is furnished by the Street Railway Company is used in the city? Yes, in the city itself. For nothing else. We have our own wheels and develop the power. By Mr. Peeples: Mr. Monteith, we would like for you to get such information and data as is possible and lay it before the Commission so we may act intelligently? We will gladly furnish all the informa¬ tion we can. By Mr. Liles: The city has recommended that this canal be com¬ pleted, hasn’t it? Well, we left that to the Chairman of the Cham¬ ber of Commerce and they framed a resolution which was approved by the City Council. STATEMENT BY MR. R. K. CARSON. My position is this, gentlemen: I don’t know just what the Com¬ mission has in mind, but I just want to make an offer for the canal; however, I don’t know whether this is the proper time to make an offer. I know something of the history of the canal, and it is unnecessary to go into that, and I know that the present claimants have, or claim to have, a vested right. Whether or not these rights have been divested by their failure to carry out their contract about which there seems no question, would perhaps be a matter first for this Commission, and possibly a matter for the Courts to decide. Now, if it is the purpose of this Commission to give the present owners od the franchise the privilege of carrying out their contract as it now stands, or to carry out their contract upon certain condi¬ tions, this would, of course, give them a preference, and it would be unnecessary for another person to bid. On the other hand, if the Commission has determined to declare that they have no right to the property; that they have forfeited the rights, and it is now the prop¬ erty of the State, and to put it up to the highest bidder, then I would be prepared to bid on the property. In other words, I don’t care to make an offer which might serve no purpose except to compel the present claimants to comply with the terms of the contract, and if, as I say, the Commission has in mind to allow them to keep it upon performance of the present contract, then I have no offer to make. On the other hand, if the Commission considers that the franchise is not now the property of the present claimants and they will accept an offer and give the preference to the highest bidder, then we will make the offer. And I might say that when we make the 50 offer, it will be accompanied with a sufficient cash deposit to guaran¬ tee that it is made in good faith, and we will be willing to enter into bond for $100,000 or $150,000, or such amount as the Commission might think advisable, for the carrying out of the contract and com¬ pleting the canal within eighteen months, work to begin within thirty or sixty days. If it is not now the porper time to make the offer, I would like to put the Commission on notice that there are other people who would like to have the property, and I will say that myself and associates are prepared to put up the sufficient cash bond, as I stated before. Of course, it would be understood that i f we got the property and gave a bond to complete it within eighteen months, we would want it specified that in event work was post¬ poned or delayed by reason of an injunction or any other legal pro¬ ceedings, that that time would be deducted during the pendency of the proceedings. Of course, if you require it, then it would be open to the public for navigation, and it would have to be, for it is one of the streams of South Carolina. By Mr. Liles: Would you mind stating who you represent in this matter? I don’t consider that necessary now, Mr. Liles. If there was any question as to whether or not this contract would be carried out by the people I represent, that would be a very pertinent inquiry. In view of the fact that we will put up the cash bond to guarantee the contract I don’t think it is necessary to state who I represent at this time. By Mr. Christensen: Would you expect to do it if you make a proposition? Yes; I would associate somebody else, but I might associate others than those named in the application also. I think the thing for the Commission to pass upon, if you will pardon me, would be, first, the sufficiency of the offer; and, second, the suffi¬ ciency of the bond; because if the canal is completed, it is utterly immaterial by whom it is completed. What the State and Columbia V ants is the canal completed in order that Columbia may be on a navigable stream. I mean, of course, to comply with the Act of 1887—I think that is the Act. By Mr. Peeples: The Commission will receive Mr. Carson’s statement, and advise him in due time its determination. By Mr. Liles: Mr. Carson, you are prepared at any time? Yes, sir; at any time that will suit the convenience of this Commission. I can make the proposition at any time. I want to make the propo¬ sition with a view of acquiring the franchise and not as a lever to prize some one else. 51 STATEMENT BY MR. T. C. WILLIAMS. I am interested in the opening of this canal solely from a point of navigation. I started a boat line on this river some five or six years ago. I took up the matter with the shippers first in Colum¬ bia, then with Mr. Robertson, but he put the matter off. I then went to Charleston and took the matter up with Eicken, Hughes & Ficken and they examined the title to the property. Mr. Hughes succeeded in getting about seventy or eighty thousand dollars sub¬ scribed, but we needed one hundred and fifty thousand. Mr. Rhett and a number of prominent men and bankers subscribed and I went to Mr. Jahns, of the Germania Bank, and explained to him my proposition. He told me to come back and when I did he said “I am not only going to have to refuse to subscribe to your proposi¬ tion, but I am going to fight your project.” He gave as his reasons that he had sold about eight thousand kegs of nails in Greenville county and that those nails were sold because he had the advantage over the Greenville and Columbia jobbers of thirteen cents on the keg. It was eleven cents to be accurate, but he said thirteen. He said he had a stick thirteen feet long to beat the Columbia jobbers with and that he was not going to give up. He also said if we put the boat line on, the other sections of the State would be on a line with Charleston. Mr. Robertson then told me if I would turn my papers over to him he would float my bonds. I told him I couldn’t for I then had a contract with Mr. Hughes. He told me to write Mr. Hughes that I could make better arrangements unless he would act within a short time. A few days afterward Mr. Hughes wrote me that in view of his campaign he thought probably I had better go ahead. Mr. Robertson told me then I would have to make it three hundred thousand dollars; he told me to meet him at the Albermarle Hotel and I went there and Mr. Graham went with me. He had arranged an appointment for me with Redmond & Company. At this meet¬ ing there were representatives of J. G. White & Company and other trust companies of New York. I outlined the project and Mr. Brown said that this proposition would not only be of enormous benefit to South Carolina, but warranted their taking these bonds and that he would send an engineer down right away. The engi¬ neer didn’t come and two or three weeks later I went to Mr. Robertson’s office and he told me I was entirely too impatient. I went several times. In the meantime the Legislature met and the Richland County Delegation had a meeting at the Palmetto National 52 Bank. Palmer McMaster, who had fought this thing all the way through the Legislature, got up and said “gentlemen, I am going to surprise you—I have a proposition to make,” and he quoted the proposition I had turned over to Mr. Robertson word for word. He then said if Richlad county would relieve Mr. Robertson of his proposition to finish this canal, he would connect the landing by electric cars. I then went to Mr. Robertson and demanded a return of my papers, but he said they were either with Redmond & Company or John Skelton Williams. I wired Williams and have his answer now. Pie said, “I have never seen papers regarding Columbia Atlantic Steamship Company.” He said though he would be in New York the next day and would look through his desk. He wired the next day that the papers had never been in his posses¬ sion, but he would be glad if I would come to Richmond. My brother, C. T. Williams, had discussed the matter with him. After that Mr. Robertson sent Mr. McMaster to me to ask me to come to the bank. I went and he said he was due me an apology. I told him I didn’t want any apology, I wanted my papers for they rep¬ resented three years’ work to me, and after a while he sent them to me. I have a letter from Mr. Robertson in which he stated that this canal would be not only of enormous benefit to Columbia, but to the entire Piedmont and central part of the State. The result of this was that my project fell through. I have a contract to deliver ten thousand bales of cotton to the Duck Mills; our rate is 8 cents per hundred pounds—about 40 cent? to bring it from Georgetown to Columbia. The drayage from the landing to the Duck Mills is 5 cents per hundred pounds, or 25 cents per bale. Now you see Columbia has no water transportation. We can save four cents per bushel on corn to Columbia; 22 cents on flour, and that is not only to Columbia, but to other points in the State. The project is a big one for South Carolina. You haven’t a distributing point in South Carolina. The opening of the canal would have a tendency to reduce your freight rates to Charles¬ ton. We have a contract with the Clyde Line for a division of 50-50; that is to say, if the freight from New York to Columbia was one dollar, we would haul it for fifty cents. I understand the Southern Railway division is about thirty-three and the Clyde Line sixty-six. We have a better division by water than by rail. This dam across the river was built a number of years ago at a cost of something like five hundred thousand dollars. It was 53 built by an order of Congress, but the engineers say it would be better to put this lock and dam in the scrap heap. Mr. Liles: Who is responsible for the construction of this dam? I can say this, the United States Government in all navigable waters —this is under control of the War Department—^and the law says you shall not build without first getting the consent of Congress and approval of the engineers, and when recommended by the engi¬ neers it is always done. Strange to say no Army Engineer and no Board of Engineers ever recommended the construction of this lock and dam and the Engineering Department in Washington and Columbia disclaim any responsibility. I have been told that Mr, Stanyarne Wilson was in Congress at the time and had something to do with it. Mr. Liles: It was in lieu of opening the canal? This is very important, about four years ago the United States Government sent a special Board of Engineers to Columbia to look into the impor¬ tance of opening this canal and I have here the report of these engi¬ neers which I will leave with you. I understand they recommended an appropriation in view of Columbia’s need, but this appropriation was contingent upon the opening of this canal. Mr. Christensen: Was that to go to the improvement of the river below? Yes, sir. Major Youngblood says the canal should be opened to head of navigation which is about three hundred yards below Rocky Branch. The water there is about 16 feet deep at low water. If you open at a point above, you have to go through the locks and go under the railroad bridges which would necessi¬ tate their having drawbridges. The Government spends from thirty to fifty thousand dollars per year and it is impossible to keep the channel open. Mr. Boyd: How about this river channel? We have to give the Captains of our boats a release when they go through. Mr. Christensen: It is that dangerous? Yes. Mr. Liles: Could you make it safe? You can’t make it safe. If you will spend enough to cut it from the locks to Gervais street, make the railroads put drawbridges, spend money enough to open up a waterway and build a concrete wall about 32 feet—that would cost though aboitt.five or six times as much as to open the canal. Another thing, when the Columbia Canal is opened that will open up the Broad River and few people know the value of the Broad River. 54 Mr. Sinkler: How far up is it navigable now? About nine miles. Mr. Christensen: How much money would it take to open up navigation twenty miles above Columbia? I couldn’t say, but 1 am satisfied that just as soon as you get this canal open Mr. Lever will be able to get a sufficient appropriation to carry you above. Mr. Christensen: Is Parr Shoals the limit? No. Mr. Boyd: Are there any locks in Parr Shoals dam? No. However,'let me illustrate. Take the Cape Fear River which has a depth of two feet, six inches. It has no country around like this; is 110 miles to Wilmington. On the 5th of last November the United States Government made sufficient appropriation to con¬ struct locks and dams, which cost a considerable sum, to get them eight feet of water at the foot of Play street. General Black, who was here with the Nitrate Commission, said this Congaree River had given them more trouble than any other river in the United States, and, gentlemen, the city of Columbia is to blame. Mr. Liles: Why is the city of Columbia to blame? Because they have a contract for the completion of the canal which would solve the problem. We bring a keg of nails from Charleston to Columbia for eight cents and have to pay five cents to get it from the land¬ ing. The United States Government has spent $75,000.00 on the Wateree River and there never has been but one boat up that river. Mr. Sinkler: Mr. Robertson was interested in floating your bonds? Yes, sir, he agreed to float them. Mr. Sinkler: But suddenly thereafter he prevented the floating of your bonds, did he? I don’t know who did it, but the papers were lost and the engineers never did come down. Mr. Christensen: What was the cause? What Mr. Robertson hoped to do was to be relieved of his obligation of digging the canal by agreeing to put the electric line to the landing. Mr. Liles: Who do you feel stopped the sale of the bonds in New York? I say this, Mr. Robertson did not keep his promise to me after putting me to considerable expense of going to New York, but on the other hand, kept my papers and they finally turned up in Columbia after a proposition had been made to your Legislature. Mr. Christensen: What reason do you assign for Mr. Robert¬ son’s action in this matter? Because the immediate opening of the 55 Columbia Canal would have been demanded by the public if we had put the boat line on. Mr. Liles: When you approached Mr. Robertson and he agreed to float those bonds, he didn’t anticipate that he would be required to open the canal? I think he thought if he floated them he would be relieved of opening the canal. Mr. Christensen: And when he found he would not, he frustrated your plans? The project fell through. Mr. Christensen: Has the War Department ever put on record such a statement as that you ascribed, that the reason they did not appropriate money is because we haven’t proper terminal facilities? The recommendations made by that department are contingent upon the opening of the canal. The engineers who have looked the situa¬ tion over have been in favor of opening the canal. There will be no trouble to have a boat line in the center of the State if this canal is open. Mr. Sinkler: Did you ever have any expert engineers to esti¬ mate the cost of opening the canal? I asked a contractor here to make an estimate of the cost and I think he said he would be willing to take the contract for twelve cents per yard; he estimated that the cost would be something less than $50,000. Mr. Liles: You spoke of what it meant to the State and country? Isn’t there a canal like that in blouston, Texas, that has developed the whole country? Yes, sir, but it would take an hour for me to tell you all about it and what it would mean to South Carolina if this canal was opened. Mr. Christensen: The Santee-Cooper Canal would lessen the distance seventy-two miles? Yes, sir. Mr. Christensen: That would be seventy-two miles nearer to Charleston than to Georgetown? Yes. Mr. Boyd: Do the railroads have to meet the river rates? They are twenty per cent, higher, but when we get this canal open, they will have to meet our rates. STATEMENT BY MR. G. A. GUIGNARD. I didn’t come down to have anything special to say; I thought it was a public hearing, and I wanted to hear what they had to say. r am especially interested in the navigation of this river, and would like to get our boats up to this street. I think water transportation is very important. It affects not only this community, but other ])arts of the State. If we can get water transportation, Columbia 56 will be a distributing point for lower freight rates. We have had on this boat line since 1913, and we have to stop below the city, at Granby landing, about three miles, and it costs us five cents per hundred pounds to get the freight up here. We have to pay one-half as much to get the freight from the landing up to the city as we charge to bring it from Georgetown. By Mr. Liles: Isn’t that Government work that is being done, done for the purpose of opening the channel in the river, and isn’t that being done by the Federal Government as the result of the effort of somebody to make the river navigable in lieu of the opening of the canal? I have understood that. I have no proof, however. In 1908 we had a freshet, and it was filled right up; they repaired it, cind it was finished in 1915. Three or four boats came up when the dam was first built, and when it was repaired in 1916 my company V/ as able to get up; the water then washed into the channel and we cannot come up unless the water is very high. I saw this Govern¬ ment dredge dredging out the channel this morning. It runs diago¬ nally across the river, and if a freshet were to come it would fill up tomorrow. The engineers say they were instructed to build that dam. My Mr. Boyd: What is it for? The dam was built to raise the water eight feet, and that was supposed to cover the rocks. By Mr. Boyd: What for? For navigation—to let the boats come up. By Mr. Boyd: Are they developing any water power? No. If this canal is opened on down they estimate they can get three thousand more horsepower. We are interested in navigation, and that channel is impracticable. If you were to get out of that channel, you might strike the rocks, and our captain of our boats doesn’t want to come up. We have to give them a release when they go through. We can get up when the water is high. It would help navigation if we could get up to Gervais street. By Mr. Sinkler: What is the name of your company? The Columbia Railway and Navigation Company. We operate between here and Georgetown. By Mr. Liles: Would your company be willing to make a propo¬ sition to buy the canal ? I don’t know, sir; I hadn’t thought of that. By Mr. Christensen: Who is president of your company? I am. By Mr. Liles : Is Mr. Williams associated with you ? Yes, sir; he is vice president. 57 By Mr. Liles; If that canal was completed, would the Government work amount to anything? They are spending $8,000.00 a year for operating that dam, and I think that would be unnecessary. By Mr. Boyd: There is enough water at that point to float a boat over the dam when this is done? Yes. By Mr. Boyd: Is it your opinion that this Government work would be unnecessary if the canal was opened? That was what the canal was intended for, and I think the engineers say it would be a good thing for it would do away with their work. By Mr. Christensen: If this canal should be completed to Rocky Branch, the work done by the Government would be of no use to navigation? We would have something very much better, and the Government engineers will tell you that. By Mr. Boyd: I don’t know anything about your business, but have you any engineers who have made an estimate of the expense of completing the canal to Rocky Branch? Yes, sir; I have made an estimate. By Mr. Boyd: Your own engineers? Yes, sir. We had two engineers who made estimates as to the cost. By Mr. Liles: The Commission would like to have a copy of these estimates. Would you file it with the Attorney General? Yes, sir. I had Mr. Weston and Mr. Haskill. They just made an estimate of digging the canal. April 17, 1917. Messrs. B. L. Abney and J. Fraser Lyon, Columbia, S. C. Gentlemen: At a meeting of the Canal Commission, held this day, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: “Upon motion, it was ordered that the Commission address a letter to Mr. B. L. Abney and Mr. J. Fraser Lyon requesting that they submit in writing to the Commission the terms upon which they will serve the Commission as assistant counsel to the Attorney Gen¬ eral in connection with the Columbia Canal litigation.” A prompt reply thereto is requested, addressing same in care of the Attorney General. Very respectfully. Secretary Canal Commission. April 21, 1917. J. T. Liles, Esq., Secretary Canal Commission, Columbia, S. C. Dear Sir: We are in receipt of your letter of the 17th inst., enclos¬ ing copy of a resolution which you state was passed at a meeting of 58 your Commission which requests us to submit in writing the terms we “will serve as assistant counsel to the Attorney General in con¬ nection with the Columbia Canal litigation.” At the request of the members present at your meeting of the 2d inst., we attended upon you and this matter was fully discussed. We left you feeling assured that we had a clear and distinct under¬ standing with you, certainly that was our understanding. This arrangement, as we understood it, was: 1. That we had been employed to assist the Attorney General in all matters which were contemplated by the provisions of the Act to be carried out and enforced to protect the interests of the State, and for the professional services so rendered would receive the amount ($2,000.00) appro¬ priated by Section 9, Item 7 of the General Appropriation Act, 1917, which specifically states that such amount was for “expenses in connection with Columbia Canal litigation under the Act of 1917.” 2. That in the event that the value of services would far exceed the appropriation for such ‘expenses that the committee would, if they deemed proper and fair to us, make recommendation in their report to the Legislature for allowanec of such sum as they thought proper, without consultation with us, we leaving the matter entirely to you and not obligatory upon you to urge it. One of us, in stating his acceptance of the ofifer, made it clear that after reading the provisions of the Act he considered the appropria¬ tion was very small and that if it involved representation of merely private interests of like character would not be a fair compensation, but that the proffer was made to represent the interests of the State and the enforcement of contracts made with it under the Act of 1887 and Acts amendatory thereof; that no one could expect the State to pay such fees as private clients usually paid; that as a citizen he should feel that the matter of compensation was secondary and not primary, and in view of the complimentary way in which the Attor¬ ney General had requested our assistance he felt willing to accept. In this the other of us joined, and, as we heretofore stated, believed our employment by the Attorney General had been approved upon the terms agreed upon. We think a reading and consideration of the provisions of the Act will quite clearly lead you to see that it is impossible for us to state in detail what we would charge for each successive item or matter, advice, conduct of proceedings or what may be anticipated as to the nature of the services required. 59 We still desire to be considered as actuated by an earnest wish to serve our State and people in this matter rather than too much emphasis should be laid upon the professional making of money, and want to evince a proper sense of appreciation of the offer of the Attorney General to assist him in the matter that the General Assem¬ bly has expressed clearly its opinion that he should have assistance on account of the large amount of litigation he is now and may be hereafter engaged in for the State besides other special duties of his office. This being our opinion and if it meets with your wishes it will be entirely satisfactory to us that you shall determine the fee upon every item so far as it can be stated, or may designate the amount for the whole services rendered in assisting the Attorney General in connection with the Columbia Canal litigation, or such fees and services as the Attorney General shall approve under the terms of the Act. The payment of such fees to be within such time as may be reasonable or customary in the office of the Attorney General or as is intended by the Act. We are, Very respectfully, B. L. ABNEY, J. FRASER LYON. MINUTES LEGISLATIVE CANAL COMMISSION HELD AT CHARLESTON, MAY 23, 1917. It having been found impossible to meet on April 26, as pro¬ vided by vote of the Commission, a meeting was called by the Chair¬ man, after consulting the members of the Commission to be held May 23d, at Charleston, in the office of Senator Sinkler. Meeting called to order at 10 o’clock as provided in the call referred to above. Present: Messrs, T. H. Peeples, J. W. Boyd, Huger Sink¬ ler and Niels Christensen. Senator Sinkler acted as chairman at the request of Chairman Peeples. Senator Christensen acted as tem¬ porary secretary in the absence of Secretary Lyles. Minutes of the last meeting read and approved. Committee recessed to meet at the office of Major Youngberg at the Custom House, and there discussed the means of securing an investigation and report by the army engineers on the develop¬ ment of the Columbia Canal. Suggestions from Major Youngberg were invited, and he made several of value to the Commission. 60 Committtee returned to Senator Sinkler’s office, and resumed the session there. Motion made by Senator Christensen that commit¬ tee of two be appointed by the Chair to go to Washington and secure the assistance of the State Congressional Delegation in having Con¬ gress pass legislation necessary to have a full and complete survey and report on the prospective completion of the Columbia Canal made by army engineers. Motion unanimously carried. The Chair appointed Messrs. Sinkler and Boyd on this committee. Letter from Attorneys Abney and Lyon read and considered; ordered made a part of the record. Moved by Mr. Boyd that a letter be written to Messrs. Abney and Lyon, in answer to their communication, as follows: “Gentlemen: Your letter of the 21st ultimo was duly received, and carefully considered by the Commission. We are pleased to note the spirit and motive actuating the letter, and that so far as the compensation is concerned, you are willing to leave the amounts and time of payments to the just and sound discretion of the com¬ mittee. After due consideration, it was the sense of the committee‘that one-half of the amount appropriated by the Act of 1917, to wit: $1,000, should be paid you forthwith as a retainer. Trusting that this is agreeable, and assuring you that the Com¬ mission is actuated by the same sense of service to the State, we are. Very respectfully,” Motion carried unanimously. Moved that the Attorney General be instructed to draw a warrant for $1,000 to the order of Messrs. B. L. Abney and J. Fraser Lyon, jointly, or two warrants, one to the order of each of the above, for $500 each. Motion carried unanimously. A letter from the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company by Edwin W. Robertson, President, dated April 25, 1917, read and considered, ordered made a part of the record. Moved by Mr. Christensen, that the offer made in the above letter is hereby refused in toto, and that the Attorney General so notify President Robertson. Motion carried unanimously. Committee adjourned at 1 :25, subject to the call of the Chairman. Columbia, S. C., April 25, 1917. “To the Honorable, the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Repre- 61 sentatives, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Sen¬ ate and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, Authorized to Act Under and by Virtue of the Act of the General Assembly of South Caro¬ lina, Approved the 12th Day of March, A. D. 1917, Relating to the Columbia Canal. Gentlemen: The Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company would respectfully make to you the following offer of compromise under the terms of the Act of the General Assembly of South Caro¬ lina, approved the 12th day of March, A. D. 1917, relating to the Columbia Canal. The Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company would call to your attention that the proponents of the Act of 1917, at the hear¬ ings before committees of the General Assembly, represented that the Columbia Canal could be completed below Gervais street down to the Congaree River a few yards above the mouth of Rocky Branch, as it is claimed was contemplated by the Act of December 24, 1887, at an expense of seventy-five thousand ($75,000) dollars. The Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company takes the position that there is no moral or legal obligation or duty resting upon it, as owner of the Columbia Canal, or otherwise, to complete the canal below Gervais street, as stated above, and that it has violated no condition contained in the Act of 1887, or otherwise imposed. Notwithstanding this, the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Com¬ pany as a compromise and settlement of this whole matter will pay to the State of South Carolina fifty thousand ($50,000) dollars for a release from any condition, obligation or duty on said com¬ pany as the owner of the Columbia Canal, or on the owner of the Columbia Canal, whoever the same may be, to extend or complete the canal below Gervais street down to the Congaree River a few yards above the mouth of Rocky Branch, or otherwise, as it is claimed was contemplated and required by the Act of December 24, 1887, entitled “An Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with the lands now held therewith, and its appurtances, and to develop the same.” The condition of this offer is, that if the State of South Carolina shall extend or complete said Columbia Canal, then all property rights and interests in the same and its appurtances, increments and improvements as so extended or completed are to vest and inure to and in the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company or the pres- 62 ent owner of the Columbia Canal, subject to all burdens, duties and obligations imposed upon the owner of the said Columbia Canal under and by virtue of the Act of December 24, 1887, excepting, of course, the obligation or duty to extend or complete the Colum¬ bia Canal below Gervais street'down to the Congaree River, or otherwise. The above sum of money is to be paid upon the approval of> an Act duly enacted by the General Assembly of South Carolina expressly reciting and incorporating the terms of the compromise above specified and enacting the same in the form of a deed of release from the State, for the benefit of this Company and all and any other persons or corporations who may have or may claim to have any right, title or interest in said Columbia Canal or its appur¬ tenances, increments or improvements growing out of and derived from and through said Act of 1887 or otherwise, and also providing for the vesting in the present owner of the Columbia Canal all rights and interest in said canal as extended or completed, if same should be extended or completed as above referred to. This is a privileged communication and is made as an offer of compromise, and it is expressly stated that this is no admission that the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company or any other person or corporation claiming or having any right, title or inter¬ est in said Columbia Canal, its premises, appurtenances, increments or improvements, is in anywise in default under any condition, obligation or duty imposed by the Act of 1887 or otherwise, and in the event that this offer of compromise is not accepted, this com¬ munication is not to be made use of or divulged in any controversy, proceeding or litigation that may subsequently arise concerning or aff'ecting this matter. Respectfully submitted, COLUMBIA RAILWAY, GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, By Edwin W. Robkrtson, President. May 28th, 1917. Mr. Edwin W. Robertson, President, Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, Columbia, South Carolina. Dear Sir: At a meeting of the Commission, named under the Act approved the 12th of March, 1917, called and held at Charles¬ ton on the 23d instant, your communication of the 28th of April, 1917, enclosing proposition to said Commission, was read to and considered by the Commission and ordered made a part of its rec¬ ords. 63 The Commission, upon motion unanimously carried, rejected the offer made in your letter and the same was “refused in toto,” and the Attorney General was requested to notify you of such action. I beg, therefore, to advise you accordingly. Should you see fit to submit any other or further proposition with regard to the control and disposition of the Columbia Canal, which was placed by said Act under the control and disposition of said Commission, which propositions shall contain such arrange¬ ments as may be satisfactory to this Commission, the same will be considered within the time allowed by statute, to wit: ninety days from the approval of said Act. Unless such arrangements or agree¬ ments of the parties claiming to have any right, title or interest in the premises be satisfactory, we will proceed in accordance with the directions given to us by the terms of said Act. Respectfully yours, THOS. H. PEEPLES, Attorney General. Spartanburg, S. C., May 30, 1917. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON PROCURING FED¬ ERAL SURVEY. To The Columbia Canal Commission: I beg leave to submit the following report: Pursuant to action of the Commission, at its meeting in the city of Charleston on May 23d, 1917, appointing two members of the Commission to go to Washington with reference to procuring Fed¬ eral survey, and my appointment on said committee and arrange¬ ments there made, and in further compliance with instructions in letter to me dated May 25th, 1917, from the Hon. Huger Sinkler (the other member designated to go, who was also Chairman of the Charleston meeting), directing me to proceed alone in event of Mr. Sinkler’s inability to go, I proceeded to Washington, and remained there two days, May 28th and 29th. On my arrival I called upon all of the Senators and Members of Congress from South Carolina and discussed separately with all who were accessible the business for which the committee was appointed, and enlisted their interest in behalf of our work, and procured the very valuable co-operation and assistance of them. With the assistance we procured an audience with the Hon. John N. Small, Chairman of the House Committee on Rivers and Har¬ bors, and were permitted to explain to him, for the committee, the 64 details of the matter. After which, having procured his co-opera¬ tion, we procured an audience with the office of the Chief of Engi¬ neers of the United States Army (Col. Henry C. Newcomer in charge). Col. Newcomer permitted us to explain in detail our sit¬ uation. In short, the result of this conference was the drafting of what was regarded as the proper amendment to the pending River and Harbor Bill to accomplish our purpose and a letter from Col. Newcomer transmitting the same to Hon. John N. Small, Chairman of the River and Harbor Committee, upon which further confer¬ ence was had with Mr, Small, who approved the proposed amend¬ ment and assured us, in behalf of his committee, that the amend¬ ment would be proposed to the bill as committee amendment. He further assured us that the report on this bill would be made within the next few days, and that the President has designated this bill as one of the war measures for the consideration of the present Congress, which, Mr. Small explained to us, insures the considera¬ tion of the bill by the present Congress. The pending bill,—being H. R. 4285, “A bill making appropriations for the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on rivers and har¬ bors, and for other purposes,”—contains: “Section 4. That for examinations, surveys, and contingencies for rivers and harbors for which there may be no special appro¬ priation, the sum of $200,000 is hereby appropriated: Provided, That no preliminary examination, survey, project, or estimate for new works other than those designated in this or some prior Act or joint resolution shall be made: Provided, further. That after the reg¬ ular or formal reports made as required by law on any examination, survey, project, or work under way or proposed are submitted no supplemental or additional report or estimate shall be made unless ordered by a concurrent resolution of Congress: And provided, fur¬ ther, That the Government shall not be deemed to have entered upon any project for the improvement of any waterway or harbor mentioned in this Act until funds for the commencement of the proposed work shall have been actually appropriated by law. The Secretary of War is hereby authorized and directed to cause preliminary examinations and surveys to be made at the following named localities, and a sufficient sum to pay the costs thereof may be allotted from the amount provided in this section (enumerat¬ ing localities; there appearing on line two, page 32) Lynches River, South Carolina.” 65 The amendment agreed upon is as follows: Amend H. R. 4285. Insert, following line two, of Sec. 4 (page 32, printed l)ill) : “Broad and Congaree Rivers and Columbia Canal at or near Columbia, South Carolina, with a view to combined improvements for navigation and water power, consideration being given to any proposition of local co-operation.” From information from South Carolina members, the Chairman of the River and Harbor Committee, and War Department (Engi¬ neering Corps), it appears that this is the proper amendmeni under any circumstances to accomplish the purpose desired by us. At any rate, it is the only available channel at the present Congress, due to the fact that it is a fixed policy of the present Congress to consider nothing except that which is regarded as war measures. Congressman Lever has very kindly consented to keep in touch with the progress of this bill and amendment, and to advise us of any developments. He has no apprehension other than that the bill with the amendment will be adopted in due course. All of which is Respectfully submitted, JESSE W. BOYD. Columbia, S. C., June 4, 1917. Pursuant to the call of the Chairman the Commission met in the office of the Attorney General, at twelve (12) o’clock m. Mem¬ bers of the Commission present were: Messrs. Peeples, Boyd, Sinkler and Liles. Minutes of last meeting read and approved. At the request of the Commission, Messrs. Abney and Lyon, Assistant Attorneys for the State, were present. The following letter received from Mr. Edwin W. Robertson, Pres., was brought to the attention of the Commission and Attor¬ neys : “Columbia, S. C., May 31, 1917. Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney General, Chairman Canal Com¬ mission, Columbia, S. C. Dear Sir: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 28, 1917, reporting the abrupt action of your Commission on May 23, five days previous to your letter, taken on the proposition of the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, submitted to you, as Chairman, on April 25, twenty-eight days previous to the meeh ing of the Commission. 66 Your letter of March 28th was the first intimation this Company had of the desire of your Commission to receive any proposition from it and we then assumed that your Commission was at least will¬ ing to reach some compromise of this dispute as contemplated in Section five of the Act. Accordingly I wrote you on March 30th frankly advising you of the necessity and time involved in calling a meeting of the directors of this Company and telling you of my intention to do this and advise you of the proposition I might be authorized to make. The meeting of the directors of this Com¬ pany was duly called and held in New York on April 12th, but I was unexpectedly detained there in the work I was doing as Chairman of a Committee of the Columbia Chamber of Commerce. In the meantime, about April 17th, Mr. Lyles appeared before your Commission and having explained the unexpected and unavoidable delay caused by my absence, was given to understand that your Commission desired this Company to submit a definite proposition in writing to you as Chairman and that then a meeting would be called, at which this Company would be invited or at least given the opportunity to appear for a reasonable and friendly discussion, in a real effort to compromise any differences that might exist. It was in accordance with this understanding that our proposition of April 25th was written and in our letter of transmissal we said: ‘We are ready to appear before the Commission at its pleasure." Before making our proposition of April 25th, we had been given no indication of the attitude of your Commission and were unable to determine whether it had chiefly in mind the promotion of the claimed public interest by way of navigation or the securing to the State of compensation for property rights claimed to be vested in it. Our bona fide information has always been that the suggested navigation purposes were impracticable if not impossible of accom¬ plishment and we really thought that your Commission had chiefly in mind the securing to the State of compensation for property rights claimed by it—yet we placed our proposition upon a com¬ promise basis of the very claims of the proponents of this legisla¬ tion, knowing that the State could make use of this money to pro¬ mote navigation via the canal if this was thought best. We remain still at a loss to see how the proposition requested from this Com¬ pany could have been made upon any other basis, and it must be conceded to have been at least a substantial and bona fide offer. Notwithstanding these circumstances this Company stands today, within eleven days of the expiration of the time allowed, without 67 having been invited or afforded the opportunity to appear before your Commission for a reasonable discussion of its proposition— this Company is today utterly uninformed either of the objections that your Commission has to its proposition of April 25th or as to what kind or character of proposition your Commission would deem advisable and proper to protect the interests of the State in this matter. If your Commission deems it proper to enter into any reasonable discussion of this matter for the purpose of accomplishing a com¬ promise, as contemplated by Section five of the Act, or if your Com¬ mission should see fit to indicate what proposition would meet its approval, this Company stands ready and willing, as it has stated it has always been, to give the suggestions of the Commission the consideration, confidence and privilege to which they are entitled and which it respectfully asks for this communication. This is a privleged communication written in an effort to com¬ promise and is no admission of any rights in the State of South Carolina as claimed under this Act or otherwise. In order to economize time, we are sending a copy of this com¬ munication direct to each member of your Commission. Respectfully, COLUMBIA RAILWAY, GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, By Edwin W. Robertson, President Upon motion of Mr. Sinkler, unanimously adopted, the following letter in reply to the above letter was ordered addressed to Mr. Edwin W. Robertson, Pres.: June 4, 1917. Mr. Edwin W. Robertson, Pres., Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Co., Columbia, S. C. Dear Sir: We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated the 31st ultimo. Desirious that there should be no misunderstanding and in order to correct the errors stated in such letter, in which you claim that you have not been given sufficient time or accorded sufficient hear¬ ing, I will first make a statement from the records. The committee has not construed the Act, nor can we perceive that anyone else would, to require us to make a proposition to you or any other party. The manner of our proceeding is left, by statute, to our good sense and to our fairness, having solely in view the interests of the public and State at large, as set forth in the statutes of this State covering a period of over thirty years. 68 The present Act was approved on March 12, 1917, three weeks after the adjournment of the Legislature. Doubtless you, your¬ self, and certainly your representatives who were apparently in opposition to the measure knew that it had passed and was before the Governor for three weeks, and certainly after its approval on March 12th, your knowledge became conclusive; and certainly under provisions 2 and 5 of the said Act you knew that the special privi¬ lege was given to you of making such arrangements or agreements with this Commission, within ninety days from its approval, and that the Commission would entertain any and determine whether any proposition you might make to us would be satisfactory, which time expires on the 10th of this month. During this entire period and up to the date of the first meeting called by the Commission you certainly had all this time to consider what proposition or propo¬ sitions you could present to this Commission. You sat perfectly quiet and did nothing; you never sought any meeting of the Com¬ mission or gave any attention to the privileges which had been accorded you. On March 22d a meeting of the Commission was had, which was known before and published in the newspapers of your own city. But no attention was paid to that, and at that meeting there was no communication from you whatever. A resolution was offered by Senator Sinkler, and adopted, that the Attorney General notify all interested parties that a hearing would be granted them at four o’clock p. m. on Monday, the 2d day of April, 1917. My recol¬ lection is that a notice of the meeting was carried in the newspapers published in this city. But that particular matter may be put out of view, inasmuch as on the 28th of March a letter was addressed to you notifying you of such meeting and its objects, pointing out the provisions of the Act and directing your attention thereto. As I had stated that if the time suggested in my letter of the 28th, did not give you sufficient time it was for you to state what time you would be ready to take the matter up. In your suggestion you stated that it was necessary for you to confer with other inter¬ ests before appearing before the Commission, with whom you were arranging such conference on April 12th, and as soon as that meet¬ ing had been concluded you would write the Commission requesting that “you call a meeting of your Commission.” It is true that you stated that you suggested that you would be glad to meet with the Commission for a discussion of this matter, but you deemed it only fair to advise us that you would be in no position to make or receive 69 any definite proposition until you had received the authority to act, which you expected to be given you at the meeting above referred to. The meeting, which was called for April 2d, was held and your reply was read to the Commission and became a part of the records of its minutes. In view of your letter, no action was taken with regard to the Columbia Canal, but the time was, as asked by you, extended. On April 17th, at a meeting called pursuant to notice, the repre¬ sentative of your Company, Mr. Lyles, appeared and made a state¬ ment which was filed as a record of the proceedings. He requested an extension of time on account of the “unexpected circumstances we (that is, Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company) are not in position to talk to the Commission this morning.” In view of this statement and notwithstanding the length of time which had clasped, you were allowed to take such time as was convenient to you, until the next meeting of the Commission which was called for April 26':h. In a communication, of date, April 25th, 1917, you submitted “an ofifer of compromise,” under the terms of the Act of March 12, 1917, relating to the Columbia Canal, and also enclosed a letter in which you stated you enclosed a communication to the Commission and used the following language: “We are ready to appear before the Commission at its pleasure.” I acknowledged the receipt of your letter on April 28th, and stated it would be made a record of the office, and called a meeting for May 23d, in Charleston. The meeting which had been called for April 26th, was postponed until the 23d of May, because of the official duties of the officers of the committee which prevented their being present,—notice of the mat¬ ter was carried in the press. At the meeting of the 23d of May, as I communicated to you, your ofifer of compromise was read and considered and ordered made a part of the records, and, upon motion, it was unanimously refused in toto, and the Attorney General directed to so notify you. Notwithstanding this statement in resume, you seem to com¬ plain that you have not been given time enough. To do what? First, to have a discussion with us, at which you were neither in position to make any definite propositions, definite arrangements, nor to reach definite conclusions, nor to be bound by any sug¬ gestions you should make. This Commission has been created for the purpose of protecting the interests of the State in a prac- 70 tical and positive way, without duplicating its meetings and increas¬ ing its expenses to be paid by the State. Your letter further states that March 28th was the first intima¬ tion your Company had of the desire of the Commission to receive any proposition from it. In view of the recitation of these meetings made to you, how can you make such a statement, when, on April 17th, your repre¬ sentative appeared before the committee and asked to have the meeting adjourned on account of your absence and that you were preparing a communication with regard to the matter ? Or, how could you read the Act of the Legislature and make any assump¬ tion of the kind you state you did? And further, in view of the letter of the 28th of March which I mailed to you? In inviting, on March 28th, a proposition from you, we supposed that your proposition would be to the point. Instead of that, your letter, so far as I can read it, shows not the slightest deference to the General Assembly which constituted us a committee to act in behalf of it, and it would be stretching the most friendly vision too far to say, from its terms, that it was intended to be in good faith or was capa¬ ble of affording the basis of any reasonable or friendly discus¬ sion to have or to advance any real effort to compromise the dif¬ ferences that might exist. The Commission, after giving it the most courteous considera¬ tion that it was capable of, rejected your proposition in toto and we still reject it, either as a basis of any reasonable or fair com¬ promise, or as an effort to bring about the adjustment which the Legislature had in view in passing the sections of an Act to which I have alluded. You are not justified in making the statement contained in par¬ agraph 3 of your letter, that you had been given no intimation of the attitude of the Commission, etc. On the contrary, my letter to you calls your attention to every phase of the Act, and while the interests under consideration may be more directly in those who are now engaged in or who propose to use these streams as navi¬ gable, it by no means follows or can be assumed that we have any such thought chiefly in our minds, or propose to protect or encour¬ age their interests over those of other citizens, or of the interest which attend and depend upon the development of power upon the canal, so as to prevent the monopoly of the sale of power to the citizens of the community within reach of an operating plant in the city of Columbia, or to engage in other enterprises 71 which would be more upon an equality with other cities with regard to the supplying of electric power, and other opportunities of open¬ ing up and aiding the Government as far as we could, in promoting the navigable capacity of the large water streams which converge into the Santee River and pass by the city of Columbia. We are not the organ, as you would intimate, of obtaining com¬ pensation for property rights which are claimed by citizens equally interested in the property of the State, as you are; nor are we your organ in attempting to protect your interests at the sacrifice of theirs. The information which you allude to as to the practicability of using the streams for navigable purposes may appear to you to be without foundation, but so far as we are officially informed your information has no basis of fact, and it would be impossible so far as we are officially advised for you to substantiate your assertion by any official inspection or examination by the Federal Officers of the United States Government and their reports thereon. We put out of view any further remark upon that paragraph of your letter. Notwithstanding, however, that we had rejected your proposition we did in the most courteous way, notifying you of same; and invite you, if you so desire, to make any other or further proposition before the expiration of ninety days after the approval of the Act that you might desire to make and we will entertain it and give it due consideration. Any reply you may make to this letter please address to each member of the Commission. Respectfully, THOS. H. PEEPLES, Attorney General and Chairman of the Committee With Regard to the Columbia Canal Matters Provided for by the Act of the General Assembly, Approved March 12, 1917. The following telegram was brought to the attention of the Com¬ mission : “Charleston, S. C., June 4, 1917. Huger Sinkler, Care Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney General, Colum¬ bia, S. C.: Howard Baetjer, President Mt. Vernon Mills, and I would like to meet Canal Commissioners, or Attorney General. Can you arrange an appointment for us. Baetjer could hardly reach Columbia tomor¬ row unless you answer quick.” 72 Upon motion, it was ordered that these parties be advised of the next meeting of this Commission, and that if they so desired the Commission would be glad to give them a hearing. Upon motion of Mr. Boyd, the Commission adjourned to meet in Columbia at ten (10) o’clock a. m. on June 11, 1917. Columbia, S. C., June 6, 1917. Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, City; Hon. Niels Christensen, Beaufort, S. C.; Hon. Huger Sinkler, Charleston, S. C.; Hon. Jesse Boyd, Spartanburg, S. C.; Hon. Junius T. Liles, Orangeburg, S. C., Canal Commission Under Act of 1917. Gentlemen: We acknowledge receipt of the letter of your Chair¬ man, dated June 5th. As this communication indicates that your Commission does not care to enter into any discussion of the matters in controversy, or to give this company any opportunity of meeting your Commission for such purpose, notwithstanding the suggestion to this effect con¬ tained in our letter of May 31st, and as this communication in nowise relieves our ignorance as to what kind or character of proposition your Commission would deem advisable and proper to protect the interests of the State in this matter, as suggested in our letter of May 31st, we find ourselves with utterly no basis upon which we can proceed to make any further or other proposition in the premises. We regret that your Commission has seen fit to keep us in entire ignorance of its attitude in this matter and to afford us no oppor¬ tunity for even the most limited discussion, in an effort to adjust the differences involved, notwithstanding that this slight consideration could have been accorded us, most easily and with all convenience to your Commission, at your meeting held in Columbia on June 4th, of which we were only subsequently advised by the newspaper reports; at which meeting we presume our letter of May 31st was considered md answered. Respectfully, COLUMBIA RAILWAY, GAS & ELECTRIC CO., By Edwin W. Robe^rtson, President. Columbia, S. C., June 11, 1917. Pursuant to adjournment of the Commission on June 4th, the Commission met at ten o’clock a. m., on June 11th, in the office of the Attorney General. Members of Commission present: Messrs. Pee- 73 pies, Sinkler and Liles. Minutes of previous meeting read and approved. Messrs. William Elliott and J. B. S. Lyles, attorneys for the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, appeared and made statements, as follows: Mr. Elliott: We have come before the Commission today for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is any possibility of our arriv¬ ing at an agreement with the Commission. We made an offer in writing to the Commission, which seemed proper, but .the off'er was rejected, as indicated to the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Com¬ pany, in toto, and that leaves us in the position of not knbwing what line of compromise the Commission would consider or accept. Our idea is to find out upon what basis there can be affected a settlement or compromise. Mr. Sinkler: I would like to ask if you have another proposition to make—a definite proposition to make. Mr. Elliott: Along what line. Senator? Mr. Sinkler: Any line that you see fit. Mr. Elliott: The situation is this: We don’t know, from the atti¬ tude of the Commission, whether they want a money settlement, a completion of the canal, if so, upon what terms; we don’t know what the idea of the Commission is as to proposing some compromise measure. It is very difficult for us to make an offer to meet with the views of the Commission without knowing their views. Mr. Sinkler: You have made us one definite proposition for so much money, which the Commission rejected, and it seems to me you should make another definite proposition. We are here to receive any proposition of any kind or character you see fit to offer us. Mr. Elliott: Was the proposition rejected because the amount named was insufficient—was that the basis of the rejection? Mr. Sinkler: The proposition was rejected because it was unsatis¬ factory to the Commission. Mr. Elliott: Unsatisfactory because we mentioned the money con¬ sideration, or because of some other reasons? Mr. Sinkler: Simply because we didn’t think it a proper or satis¬ factory proposition. Mr. Elliott: Has the Commission in mind a proposition which, if we make, will be accepted ? 74 Mr. Sinkler: My attitude in this matter is simply this: We are here to receive any definite proposition or propositions from you all, and not to offer any propositions to you. Mr. Elliott: We understand that. Mr. Sinkler: If you all can offer, no matter what that proposition is, a concrete proposition, a definite proposition, we would be glad to> hear it; those are my views. Mr. Peeples: I don’t think, Mr. Elliott, the Commission is in a position to suggest any proposition to you gentlemen. We can only entertain and pass upon the propositions offered to the Commission Mr. Elliott: It seems to me the Commission should define its policy so far as to say whether they will accept a proposition along certain lines, or indicate in some way what their views are. Mr. Sinkler: Have you any proposition to place before the Com¬ mission proposing to complete the canal and carry out the contract with the State ? Mr. Elliott: Mr. Sinkler, the offer which we made in writing con¬ tained the offer of an amount and then, I may say, proposes an offer of compromise. Was it objected to because of that amount or because the terms contained therein were not satisfactory? Mr. Peeples: The offer didn’t meet the approval of the Commis- !on in any way. Mr. Elliott: Because of the terms or amount stated ? Mr. Peeples: Just as expressed in the minutes. Mr. Elliott: Senator Sinkler, answering your question, if the Commission has formulated any plans or specifications or terms as to how the canal can be completed, we might consider that as a basis of compromise. We don’t know what construction the Commission has placed on the Act—the obligation of the Street Railway Com¬ pany or anyone else. We would like to ask the Commission this question: If we increase the amount named in the offer which our clients made, is there, by that means, any way of arriving at an agreement with the Commission ? Mr. Sinkler: We could not act on any offer until that offer is sub¬ mitted, and, as I stated before, Mr. Elliott, we would be willing to- -ntertain any proposition, one, two or three, or any number of propo¬ sitions that you desire to make, but we can’t act upon a proposition until we receive it in definite form. Mr. Elliott: Is the Commission ready and willing to recommend to the Legislature a proposition if it meets the approval of the Com- uission? 75 Mr. Sinkler: We must see that proposition before we can exercise- our discretion. Mr. Liles: Have you gentlemen in mind a proposition you desire -o make? Mr. Elliott: It is very difficult to answer that question because of the numerous angles of the thing. We are desirous of arriving at an agreement or settlement or compromise with the Commission. Mr. Liles: You have considered, though, another proposition that you will make to the Commission? Mr. Elliott: We have considered every proposition that we thought should be acceptable to the Commission. We don’t want ) strike in the dark, but we want to arrive at an agreement and are willing to do whatever is necessary, and we would like to discuss the proposition freely. We are not here with the desire to make up any record, but we want to arrive at a settlement. Mr. Sinkler: We don’t know how we can arrive at any settlement until the proposition is submitted to us in definite form. You sub¬ mitted one proposition, and it was not accepted. If you will submit any number of propositions in writing, then we will know how to answer. Mr. Elliott: Just consider our position for one moment—take the question of the advisability of co-operating with the city of Colum¬ bia. It is, I understand, proposing to issue bonds for the purpose of buying a municipal warehouse, and it is, I understand, necessary o get the co-operation of Congress. The Committee on Rivers and Harbors has refused to appropriate money where the municipal warehouses are not owned by the city, but will appropriate money where they are owned by the city. The city of Columbia is ready to buy municipal warehouses. We don’t know but that some compro¬ mise may be made, the State’s co-operating with the city, which will be advantageous to every one. If there is any way of discussing it, we would like to do so, but it is very difficult to make a series of propositions without knowing whether the Commission is going to accept or refuse them. Mr. Liles: In your consideration of this matter, have the people you represent thought of proposing to this Commission to carry out your contract with the State ? Mr. Elliott: They have thought of it from every angle. The ques¬ tion of the contract with the Sate is a question involving the possi¬ bility of a variety of constructions. The only way we can arrive at that is to join upon some ground and discuss the proposition freely.. 76 Mr. Liles: Mr. Elliott, if there are dififerent constructions, and I suppose there are, have you people considered proposing to the Com¬ mission to carry out the contract in accordance with your construc¬ tion ? Mr. Elliott: Senator, our consideration of the Act puts a light on the thing from our standpoint—well, we don’t view the thing as placing at this time any burden upon us. Without prejudice, we are ready to avoid the legal discussions and arrive at a settlement. I will make this suggestion: We are both here sparring on the record, 0 to speak, because we are being asked questions on each side which neither side is answering; I make the proposition that we go into an informal discussion to ascertain if there is any possibility of our arriving at a settlement. Mr. Peeples: The Commission, as indicated to you by Senator Sinkler, has nothing to go upon until a proposition is laid before'it, but, nevertheless, if it is the pleasure of the Commission to concur in Mr. Elliott’s suggestion, we will do so. Mr. Sinkler: I presume you mean by informal that no notes be taken of our discussion. Mr. Elliott: I mean in an eflfort to compromise, which is the law and the policy of the Courts, not to take advantage of anyone or anything that is said in the effort to compromise, and we would be willing to discuss this thing informally in that spirit. Mr. Peeples: You mean that no statements made under those con¬ ditions shall be binding or come up afterwards ? Mr. Elliott: Yes; I mean that. Our position is this: Everything we say we are bound to, and the Commission is not. Mr. Liles: From your statement a moment ago, you take the posi- on that there is no burden upon the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company at this time. Is that statement based upon the assumption that the contract is null and void? Mr. Elliott: We are here to endeavor to arrive at an agreement with the Commission under the terms of the Act. If we are going ' o discuss the legal aspects of the case, I don’t think it will profit us in arriving at an agreement. I will say, however, taking the legal aspect, we deny any liability for the completion of the canal, and claim that we have fulfilled our duty in the premises entirely, and propositions we make, as we made before, are privileged proposi¬ tions for the sake of a settlement and without prejudice. Mr. Sinkler: Gentlemen, in the first place, speaking for myself individually, and I think for the Commission, it is not a question of 77 sparring on the record, but our position is that we are very glad to entertain any proposition you gentlemen may make, and we will be glad, for the interest of all concerned, if this matter could be amica¬ bly determined upon, but it is also the position of the Commission lO have something in clear, definite form, in the nature of one propo¬ sition, two propositions, or a series of propositions to act upon. The kind and character of the propositions and number of propositions is a matter for you to decide. When we receive them, we can then act upon them intelligently; until we receive them we can do noth¬ ing. Mr. Elliott: What answer does the Commission make to my prop¬ osition, in an effort to fulfil the wishes of the Act and the spirit of the law, to enter into a discussion for the sake of arriving at a com¬ promise, which will not be binding upon either party and be privi¬ leged ? Mr. Sinkler: I think that is sound doctrine, and has always and should always receive the approval of the Courts to prevent any litigation on any subject whatever. We represent, not a private corporation, but the State and a political body. Any proposition ou gentlemen may make we will treat without prejudice, and you are at liberty to make them along those lines. So far as our minutes are concerned, why, as you know, we are compelled to keep those minutes. So far as the propositions you may offer, we will be very glad to receive them, without prejudice, in the sense we always extend to each other in striving to arrive at a settlement of a case without prejudice. Mr. Elliott: I would like to ask the Commission again, not for the sake of being persistent, but with a definite object in view,—refer¬ ring to our written proposition to the Commission, is there anything in that letter, so far as the terms of the letter are concerned, which are objectionable to the Commission or a bar to a settlement? If the letter does contain any matter that is a bar, we would like to dis¬ cuss the revision of it, and we may find something that would meet the minds of the Commission. Mr. Sinkler: The Commission has considered what we thought a definite proposition. That proposition is unsatisfactory to the Com¬ mission, and, therefore, any other proposition in order would be on your part. Mr. Elliott: If we were to consider increasing the amount men¬ tioned in that letter, would the Commission consider a proposition^ If we amended that letter by increasing the amount. 78 Mr. Sinkler: Whatever new proposition you may make the Com¬ mission will be glad to pass upon it and approve or disapprove it. Mr. Elliott: If there are any objectionable terms in that letter which the Commission thinks should be revised, we stand ready to consider the revision of them, subject to all of the claims of privi¬ leges in the letter, and in exactly the same manner and method as made in the letter, we make the proposition to the Commission that that sum of $50,000 be increased to $75,000—the total amount in the letter. Mr. Sinkler: Is that the present concrete proposition ? Mr. Elliott: Yes, sir. The Commission requested that the proposition be put in writing and this was done. Letter follows: “Columbia, S. C., June 11, 1917. To Hon. Thos. H. Peeples, Attorney General, Chairman, and the Members of the Canal Commission Under the Act of March 12, 1917, Columbia, S. C. Gentlemen: Referring to its letter of April 25, 1917, containing a previous offer of compromise, made by the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, this company would, subject to the terms and conditions of such letter and claiming all privileges set forth therein, make a further offer by striking out the amount of $50,(X)0 offered in such letter and inserting in lieu thereof the sum of $75,000, so that said offer would be an offer of $75,000 under the terms, conditions and privileges of such letter of April 25th. This company would earnestly request the Commission to advise it if any of the terms and conditions contained in such letter of April 25th are objectionable, because this company feels that if the amount now offered is satisfactory, an agreement can be reached as to the terms and conditions, and will be glad to co-operate with the Com¬ mission to accomplish such agreement. Very respectfully, COLUMBIA RAILWAY, GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, By Its Attorneys, Wm. Elliott, J. B. S. Lyles.” Mr. Liles: Mr. Elliott, is this your final proposition? Mr. Elliott: Yes, sir. The Commission, after going into executive session to consider the above proposition, addressed the following letter to the attorneys for the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company: 79 “Columbia, S. C., June 11, 1917. Messrs. Wm. Elliott and J. B. S. Lyles, Attorneys for Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Co., Columbia, S. C. Gentlemen: We have given careful and mature consideration to the proposition contained in your letter of this date, and after due deliberation, we feel that the acceptance of such an offer would be in derogation of the rights of the State, and are constrained to reject the same. Regretting that we could not arrive at an amicable adjustment of this matter, we are. Yours very truly, THOS. H. PEEPLES, Chairman.’’ Columbia, S. C., June 11, 1917. Messrs. Thomas H. Peeples, N. Christensen, Jesse W. Boyd, J. T. Liles and Huger Sinkler, Commissioners Appointed Under the Act to Declare That the Columbia Canal, Etc., Shall Revert to the State. Gentlemen: The Mount Vernon-Woodbury Mills, Inc., is tne owner of a site upon the Columbia Canal and of water power derived therefrom. This site and this water power were acauired from the Columbia Mills, to whom they were sold and conveyed by the Colum¬ bia Water Power Company by deeds dated in 1894. The sales were made tinder the ample power of sale contained in the Act of Decem¬ ber 24, 1887; and the Columbia Mills was located near the canal with a capacity of thirty thousand spindles in response to the invita¬ tion extended in the Act of 1887, and in reliance upon the power of sales therein contained. The Mount Vernon-Woodbury Mills, Inc., therefore, submits that if there has been any forfeiture of the Columbia Canal properties, such forfeiture does not extend to the land and the water power so bona fide sold and purchased in reli¬ ance upon said Act. It, therefore, asks that the Commission will recognize and confirm its title to the said site and water power, sub¬ ject to the approval of the Legislature of South Carolina. Respectfully, HOWARD BAETJER, President. Columbia, S. C., August 10, 1917. The Commission met in the office of the Attorney General in response to the call of the Chairman, at 10 a. m., August 10, 1917. 80 All members of the Commission were present. On motion, reading of minutes of last meeting was dispensed with. Hon. H. H. Evans, of Newberry, appeared before the Commis¬ sion, on behalf of his constituents, urging the Commission to take over the canal. The Attorneys for the Commission, Messrs. Abney and Lyon, came before the Commission and reported what had been done rela¬ tive to making re-entry on behalf of the State. Copies of notices of re-entry and other papers pertaining to the authorized proceed¬ ings were ordered incorporated in the minutes. The following resolutions were unanimously adopted; Resolved, That the Commission hereby authorize and empower the Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, as Chairman of the Commission, on behalf of the Commission, to re-enter and take actual possession of the property of the State of South Carolina, known as the Columbia Canal, and all property thereon and connected herewith, under uthority of an Act entitled Act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appurtenances, and the interest of the State in and to the Columbia Canal, authorized to be transferred under an Act entitled ‘An Act to incorporate the Board of Trustees of the Colum¬ bia Canal to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with the lands now held therewith, and its appurtenances, and to develo]> the same,’ approved December 24th, 1887, and Acts supplemental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State by reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions contained in said Acts, and to provide provisions relating to the operation, management, control, disposal or sale of said canal.” We have this day attached our signatures to the notice of re-entry. Resolved, That the counsel for the Commission are hereby author¬ ized, on behalf of the Commission, to communicate with the Colum¬ bia Duck Mills in regard to their letter of June 11, 1917, and advise them of the position of the Commission. Resolved, That in the event the parties in possession of the Colum¬ bia Canal and its appurtenances shall surrender the said Columbia Canal and its appurtenances peaceably and in accordance with the provisions of the Act relative thereto, that suitable agents, contrac¬ tors and other persons necessary for the temporary operation anrl care of said canal and its appurtenances, be employed by the Attor¬ ney General, upon such terms and for such compensation as he may deem advisable, subject to the ratification of the majority of the 81 officers constituting the Commission. That in the meantime the Attorney General be, and he is hereby, authorized to receive from the Columbia Duck Mill such rental or compensation for the use of the water power that said corporation has heretofore been paying for use of water power under the terms of its original contract, and that the said Attorney General do pay, out of funds received from said corporation, the necessary charges of such agents, contractors, and other persons necessary to operate and care for said canal and its appurtenances. Mr. T. B. Pearce, representing the wholesale merchants of Colum¬ bia, came before the Commission and urged the importance of the completion of the canal. Mr. Thornwell McMaster came before the Commission and urged the completion of the canal for the benefit of the agricultural inter¬ ests of the State, and in order that exceedingly cheap power might be received. The Commission adjourned at 1:20, subject to the call of the Chairman. August 10th, 1917. To Columbia 'Railway, Gas & Electric Company, a Corporation Organized and Existing Under the Laws of the State of South Carolina; Mr. Edwin Wales Robertson, President; Mr. A. L. Kenyon, General Manager, and the Board of Directors of Said Company. Gentlemen: The undersigned, the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate, and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, acting under the authority of an Act, entitled, “An Act to declare that the Columbia Canal, and its appurte¬ nances, and the interest of the State in and to the Columbia Canal, authorized to be transferred under an Act entitled ‘An Act to incor¬ porate the Board of Trustees of the Columbia Canal, to transfer to the said Board the Columbia Canal, with the lands now held there¬ with, and its appurtenances, and to develop the same,’ approved December 24th, 1887, and Acts supplemental or amendatory thereof, shall revert to the State by reason of and on account of the violation of the conditions contained in said Acts, and to provide provisions 82 relating to the operation, management, control, disposal or sale of said canal,” approved the 12th day of March, A. D. 1917, who, under Section 2 of said Act, were empowered, authorized and directed, or a majority of them, ninety (90) days after the approval of said Act, to make such re-entry for and in behalf of the State as may be necessary and proper under the circumstances, and to take such steps as may be lawful and proper in the premises to obtain possession and control of the property of the said Columbia Canal, its appurtenances and the land held therewith, and the improvements placed thereon by those in possession, which have become a part and parcel of said canal, unless the claimants enter into arrangements satisfactory to said officers as therein provided; and, to take such possession, control, and direction of the development of the water power originally contemplated by said Acts, and to dispose of the same, in such way as they may deem advisable and proper, for the interest of the State—the said time limited in said Act having expired, do declare, in accordance with the provisions of Section 1 of the same, that the right, title and interest of the State to the said Columbia Canal, its appurtenances and the lands held therewith, so transferred by virtue of said Acts, have been forfeited and reverted to the State; and, we, representing the State of South Caro¬ lina, having accorded to you, who have heretofore and do now claim possession of said Columbia Canal, and, after due notice given to you to make satisfactory arrangements as may be approved by the undersigned as officers of the State, and satisfactory to them, and having failed to do so, do make demand upon you for the posses¬ sion, control of said property therein specifically set forth and described and do hereby give you notice that they will, upon the 20th day of August, A. D. 1917, at twelve o’clock noon, make re-entry upon and in behalf of the State and take possession and control of said property; and that you, your agents and servants, from now on cease to take or have any management or control of said property, and do surrender the possession of same peacefully and in a proper manner to the said undersigned, chargeable by the said Act with the possession, management, control and direction, and development of the water power, and for carrying out the com¬ pletion of the Canal for navigable purposes, as contemplated by the aforesaid Acts and dispose of the same in such way as they may deem advisable and proper for the interest of the State. And you are further notified that any attempt upon your part, your officers, agents and employees, to interfere with, impede, 83 obstruct the possession, control and management of said property as authorized by provisions of the Act approved March 12th, 1917, or in any manner trespass upon said property after the re-entry made by us mentioned in this notice, shall be considered and treated as a trespass. To this notice of re-entry we have hereunto affixed our signatures as officers of the State of South Carolina as members of said Com¬ mittee, this tenth day of August, A. D. 1917. (Signed) TIIOS. H. PEEPLES, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina. (Signed) HUGER SINKLER, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate. (Signed) JESSE W. BOYD, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Repre¬ sentatives. (Signed) NIELS CHRISTENSEN, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate. (Signed) J, T. LILES, Chairman of the Wavs and Means Committee of the House of Representatives. Columbia, S. C., December 4, 1917. Pursuant to call of the Chairman, the Commission met Tuesdav, December 4th, at 12 o’clock, in the office of the Attorney General. Members of the Commission present were: Messrs. Peeples, Sinkler, Boyd and Liles. Minutes of the meeting of June 11th and August 10th were read and approved. Following letters were read and ordered incorpo¬ rated in the minutes. “Columbia, S. C., August 14, 1917. Hon. Thomas H. Peeples, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina; Hon. Huger Sinkler, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate; Hon. Jesse W. Boyd, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives; Hon. Niels Christensen, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate; Hon. J. T. Liles, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives, constituting the Canal Com¬ mission and individually. 84 Dear Sirs: The Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, by its attorneys thereunto duly authorized, acknowledges your letter of August 10th, and respectfully advises you that it denies in toto your claims concerning the Columbia Canal. The company further warns and notifies each of you to refrain from interfering with or trespassing upon its possession, manage¬ ment or control of the Columbia Canal, and its appurtenances, and notifies you that it will hold each of you personally and individually responsible for any interference with or trespass committed upon its property or possession. The company further advises you that said Act of 1917, to which you refer and under which you claim authority, is null and void because it violates the Constitutions of the United States and of South Carolina. Very respectfully, COLUMBIA RAILWAY, GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, By Wm. Elliott and J. B. S. Lyles, Its Attorneys.” “Columbia, S. C., August 20, 1917. Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, Messrs. Wm. Elliott and J. B. S. Lyles, Its Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina. Gentlemen; We acknowledge receipt of your letter of date the 14th instant. In pursuance.of oUr notification to you, of date the 10th instant, and in view of your reply thereto, of the 14th instant, we hereby notify you that the Commission appointed by the State of South Carolina claims possession and control of the property described in said Act and in said letter to you; and for and in behalf of the State of South Carolina claim possession and control of said prop¬ erty from and after twelve (12) o’clock noon of the present day, and that the re-entry mentioned in paragraph 2 of said Act has, by reason of the notice heretofore served upon you and of your reply thereto, have performed the direction of said Act in such way as is proper under the circumstances. Therefore, the State of South Carolina, by and through us, in its behalf, claim the possession and control of said property, its development and disposal in accordance with the terms and provisions of said Act. Very respectfully. THOS. H. PEEPLES, 85 Attorney General of S. C,. for Himself and Other Members of the Committee on Columbia Canal. The attorneys for the Commission, Messrs. Abney and Lyon, came before the Commission and made report as follows: “Mr. Chairman: After receipt of the letter from the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, of date August 14, 1917, Mr. Lyon and myself conferred with the Attorney General as to the proper .course under the Act to be pursued. In view of that letter and of the situation, the letter of August 20, 1917, which has been read, was sent. We were informed that the officers of the Columbia Railway, Gas & Electric Company, with others, had gone down to the canal prop¬ erty, at its entrance on Gervais street, to resist any peaceable and quiet, physical re-entry; that is to say, any going upon the property in accordance with their letter of August 14. Upon full considera¬ tion of the terms of the Act, which reads ho make such re-entry for and on behalf of the State as may be necessary and proper under the circumstances,’ we considered it unnecessary for the Attor¬ ney General and the officers of the Legislature to commit any breach of the peace, and that such letter was to the effect that it relieved us from any further attempt to make any physical entry upon the property, so that it gave us sufficient legal grounds to bring the suit, which the Act contemplated by Section 2—that we should take such steps as should be legal and proper in the premises to regain control of the Columbia Canal and the improvements placed thereon by those in possession, which has become a part and parcel of the said canal. The authority of our own State, that is to say, the decisions of our own State, fully justify and support the position that we took— that we are not called upon, nor is any private citizen called upon, to forcibly make re-entry if the other party forbids it. We have I If ^ ♦. t '•* f i , 4 ‘4 o. ! *' ^ »- W ’V j 1 . X I i 4 *1- Vi % 4 \