Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1880-01-29

~,
company Of our own people would take this
canal and pay tho State 5000 annually for
it for fvo years and then $4,000 asnqally
thereafter OH lease for o long period. RWe
know nothing Of this oAor and very litao Of
tho discussion of tho Canal Act, but we have
bocn informed by one of our members that he
novor heard of such proposition before. II
must, therefore, have boon kept rather Quiet
Apart from this we have several answers to
this assertion. If such q company liz this
State Ind n bona lde existence and Mere
willing to. take tho canal on these terms,
with the rights of the State properly guarded,
| why did thoy not treat with tho Canal Com :
missionors appointed under tho not IF March
18th, 1879, and to.whom power was givon to
control and diroot the Development and dis.
posal Of tho canal with full power to grant,
sell or lease stos of this property to erect
factories, &ci Thoy had nearly year to
look around and mako written proposal and
only when tho canal is about to pass into
other hands do they speak and through
others, in an authoritative way. Why did
they not mako their offor in form and torms
and propose to bind themselves to perform
thoir contract and that NIL tho rights Of the
State should be sccured2 This company
which seems to hayc been in tho clouds, may
have vanished like mist before the morning
sun after tho Legislature had adjourned. A
nero statement couldbind no one, eId were
it otherwise the allegation Of t,a Sdnator
woulG be an nrruignmeht of every n,eihbsr of
the House and Senate for acting adversely to
the interests Of the State and his constituents
Further, If the Senator beloved this prop
osition was q genuine one and would conduce
moro to tho interests Of the State, why did
he lid hc not press it in the argument OH the
Caual Act, instead Of amplyfying on tho
Blue Ridge Road add foreign capitalsts2
Such limo Of argument would hayo been
unanswerablo and would have offered tan>
giblo and solid wall against tho Canal Act
1t would have been the erperimcntem cructs,
to which no conceivable reply could have
been offered. Was this company responsible?
Could aud would it havo given bond for the
performance of tho work or did it liopo TO
buy the canal for speculative purposes? Wo
know nothing about it, but merely state that
IL such company actually existed ard
honestly desired to contract for the canal II
took poor way to make its offer.
Is the canal Of my value to tho State?
IF" says tho Senator, 'tho opinions of
Maj. Thomas B. Lee, Col. Mahon, Professor
l.eContc aud other experienced and skillrul
engineers bo worth anything, this property is
not only valuable, but it would bo difficult to
estimate its value" We know Mai. Lee and
Prof LcConc personally, having been in
college under the latter, and respect the
opinions Of them, Col. Mason ard all other
like skilled engineers, bat wo arc satisfied
that thoy said tho canal might be made
of great value to tho Stale, and not that it
was SO in its past nrty years condition. 1t
has mover been Of any value to tho State,
being retreat for snakes, frogs and filled
with mud and trash, and We we'll remember
that when in college over twenty years ago,
in walking along its banks, every few steps,
To would hear ''k6-chug,"! and iatof in
tho evening the hollow croaking Of &cgs
iled the mir. The reopo Of Columbia and
the State havo grown tired Of this music, and
prcfcr to hear the buzz Of machinery tho hum
of tho spindle, the rattle Of tho shuttle and
tic c!ang tho battcn. This is better and
more proGtablc and unless wo arc deceived
in tho distinguished engineers referred to,
they, too. will agree with this idea, as consti-
tuting the true value Of the canal, and as in
its development likely to enhance tho pros.
pcrity of every portion Of tho State, the
presence and capital of these Northern mon,
working reconciliation between the sections
and Graduating tho false notion that in the
South the lives and money Of Northern mon
were not safe. Space forbids further dis
cussion of this matter in this issue, but in our
next we propose to reply briefly to the main
grounds OF the opposition Of the Senator to the
Nct, to wit: That some of its provisions were
unconstitutional and othcrs unequal end
unjust, aud therefore vio.atiyo Of pdrcsDerto-
cratic principles. rs we'll as the plan of hiring
out convicts and somo other points of less
matcriality. After this wo will let this
matter rcst and let time determine whether
the provisions Of the Act be wise or unwse.
A Card.
SENECA CITY, January 81, 1880.
EpiroEs KEowEE CoURiER--Gcnls: hear Of
rcnorls in the country Tint wns coilc,l on for n