Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1880-02-12
THE COLUMBIA CANAL.

weeks upon tho Columbia Canal. For fen,
Of taxing the patience of the readers of the
COURIER. will do so as conoisely as possible
In answer to your first inquiry, "why was
the Blue Ridge Railroad Bill and it's defeat
in tho House lugged into tho discussion2''
let me say thar it has been "lugged" in by
yourselves and cannot be inferred from the
remarks mado by me in the Senate.
| The Senator from Edge6eld, who preceded
mo in tho debate, upon the measure. bud
referred to tho various applications which
had como or would come before tho Legisla-
ture for tho labor Of the convicts in our
Penitentiary from tho friends Of tho Bluo
Ridge, the Bolton, Williamson and Easley,
tho Greenwood and Augusta aud other rail-
roads, and had appealed to the Senate not to
allow any apprehension that all of these
demands could not bo supplied to defeat it's
passage. In replying to him thought proper
in my introductory remarks to discaim, as
said, before stating my objections to the bill,
having any sectional feeling, and to assure
him there was no measure before the General
Assembly, from my section, with which the
passage of the measure would conflict. This
has been used by yourself and not by mo rs
'spcctous argument"
There is not q word its my speech about
the Spragues. tho Chadwick fraud and tho
Harris bubble. Reference was made to these
in our discussion only.
Again, you ask. if the proposition men.
toned in my last came from companies which
had bona tde existence and were willing to
take the canal on those terms. why did they
pointed under act Of March 18th, 1870, Sc
If my manuscript read "canal and property"
as published, should have said canal and
penitentiary property.
The Senator from Newberry stated these
propositions in his able speech, and urged
them, with all that eloquenco and force OF
language for which he is distinguished. and
while his arguments did seem "unanswcra-
bio" aud to offer "a tangible and solid wall
against the Canal Act" which, you say, would
have been tho consequence Of it's application,
it did not, however, prevent majority Of tho
Senator's from voting for its passage. 1t is
no matter of surprise that ono mcmbcr Of the
House did not hear this proposition, for he
was in that body, 1 presume. while the dis
cussion was going on in tho Senate. Nor is
it matter of surprise that this proposition
or the other was not submitted to the Canal
mmission, appointed under Act Of March
l2ih, 1879, as TINT commission disagreed az
to tho powers conferred hy this act. and
refused to spend the SIl 900 placed at their
disposal or to do anything in the promises.
Where, then, arc the 'specious argumeats'
which you seemed to apprehond Nigh, array
our people against a wise measure in your
jugment2" l opposed tho bill because in ny
judgment it was unconstitutional. 1t was
unconstitutional, since tho Constitution
specifies what property in our State shall be
exempt from taxation, and our Legislature
has no power greater than that Constitution.
The Courts of our State have decided that
the Legislature has no power to exempt from
levy and sale under tho homestead, act
property other than that specified in the
Consultation, which provides for tho homel
stead exemption, and therefore have virtually
decided or left no room for doubt as to the
unconsttntionality of exempting from taxa
ton other property than that mentioned in
that same Constitution. Tho Legislature has
not only no power to violate tho Constitution,
but it has now power to euade it in any way,
To collect money by taxation for tho purpose
of making gifts to tho people. as such legis,
lation as this does, is not only contrary to the
spirit of our Constitution, but yiolatiyo of
Democratic principles.
| In 1895 or 1885 tho United States had in her
Treasury ovor forty millions of dollars lying
idlo. This money had been collected by taxation
from the States, and as tho General Govern.
mont had no use for it IN effort was made
| to pass an not for tho purpose of giving il
| back to tho people. The constitutionality OF
such an net was ably debated by Calhoun
Clay, Webster and other great men Of TIM,
date, and the conclusion reached was that il
would be unconstitutional. The Air Line
Railroad was exempted from taxation by or
act Of our Legislature, which you say creates
doubt as to tho constitutionality of suct
| legislation, but tho Supreme Court of tho
United States following established prinoi-
pies, decided our Legislature had no sucl
power.
opposed the measure, further, on tht
ground that it's provisions wero unequal and
discriminating, as it was giving to this
company more than had ever been given by
our Legislature to any other company. You
are mistaken in saying it only gives tho same
privileges as had been conferred upon al
other manufacturing companies. All tho
other companies which havo been exempted
from taxation wcro built and operated by
private capital Twas unjust and disorin,
mating because it would hecessitate the taking